I liked Star Trek '09 more. I went to watch it again with enthusiasm. When I watched Star Trek Into Darkness again, I did it to see if what I saw the first time had actually happened.
Trek '09 wasn't perfect, but it was very entertaining. I thought the new actors channeled the original actors fairly well, particularly Pine, Quinto, and Urban. Greenwood was great as Pike as well. The action was big and I liked the large scope of the film. Nero was a drab villain, despite having a great opening. Overall though it was a rousing, entertaining film that made Trek cool again for the mass audience.
In contrast, Into Darkness felt like a retreat. I had to watch it again to see that it actually did have a theme, that it was about something (post-9/11 politics). But creatively it felt like a regression. I didn't like the inclusion of Khan and I didn't like whitewashing Khan. I felt the crew was more immature than they should have been. I didn't like them taking scenes from The Wrath of Khan. The action was still good, the acting wasn't bad. Cumberbatch and Weller made for better villains than Bana in the acting department. To me, it felt like Into Darkness was a cliff notes version of Trek: Khan, Klingons, etc. and it felt like both, and Leonard Nimoy's Spock cameo was shoehorned in (though admittedly how original Spock showing up on Delta Vega in '09 Trek was way too convenient).