Analyst experience versus Brand name

I have been trying to secure an IBD internship at a BB in London, but unfortunately that hasn’t worked out so far. And as I am already graduating this year, I am now shifting my focus to positions within my own country (mainland Europe) in the hopes of lateraling to a BB later on in my career.

Recruiting nationally has been going quite well so far, but I am in doubt about which analyst position would be the best to choose in order to improve my changes of lateraling to a BB in London later on:

 - An M&A analyst position at the HQ of the biggest national bank in my country

 - An M&A analyst position at a regional office of a lower tier international bank (think HSBC, BNP Paribas, RBC etc.)

I know that working at the national bank will give me more transaction exposure. The bank has been the best performing M&A advisor in my country for many years (in terms of deal volume and deal value) and it has been involved in most of the major national M&A transactions. The lower tier international bank does such a small number of transactions each  year that it doesn’t even show up in any national league tables (both deal volume and deal value). So based on that I lean towards a position at the national bank.

My only concern is that the name of the national bank carries less ‘value’ when recruiting in London as compared to the brand name of the lower tier international bank.

So my question is: should I go for the best analyst experience where the chances of working on actual transactions are very high, or should I go for a position that carries a better brand name but offers less of an experience?

Any insights would be welcome, thanks in advance!