would you rather: 2 years at 1st-time fund or 4yrs at well-known fund?

if you already have 1yr of asso experience and are trying to lateral, would you rather -

1. join a 1st time LMM fund (by a veteran from a UMM fund, aum $500m-1b), do 1-2 more years of asso, with good potential to make sr. asso your 2nd or 3rd year
   1. position is advertised as "career-track" without mandatory MBA, although we all know nothing is guaranteed
   2. luckiest scenario you get promoted to sr asso after only 1yr, so you do only 2 years of asso in total, but in a more conservative/probable scenario you still do 2 years here, so total is 3yrs (vs the 4yrs at big fund)
2. join a big well-known firm ($20-40B) in their MM/LMM strategy fund ($1-4B), which has a defined 3-year program (and you must do all 3 years despite already having 1yr of asso experience), and longer path + lower probability to sr asso/vp/principal etc
   1. job description says it's a 3-year program, but i do see on linkedin many sr asso who made it without mba/got promoted from asso
   2. total would be 4 years of associate, which is LONG

strategy is very similar - both funds invest in the same sector and in similar-sized deals ($10-60M annual revenue)

i know ultimately it depends on many other factors (money/carry/co-invest, people, hours, etc.) but just from the perspective of 1) # of years having to do the asso grind vs 2) more well-known platform, how would you choose?