Alapin v/s Smith Morra Gambit against Sicilian. Which is better?

Alapin (2.c3) and Smith Morra Gambit (2.d4 exd4 3. c3), which is better to play against Sicilian Defence? 

2. c3 is objectively stronger. But the positions we get from those two openings are completely different.

SMG can transpose to the Alapin FYI.

My take from the black side, the SMG is more sharp, tactical and fun for white; black can easily slip with one bad move despite being 1 pawn up.

In the Alapin, black has many ways to equalize and the games tend to be closed positions, even French like at times.

If you play the morra, you have to know the alapin because if they decline you're playing the alapin. So the alapin is better to know. However, the morra accepted can be deadly if you know ALL the lines. They are very confusing and hard to remember but that is what makes it good. I have a ton of games in the morra and have beaten titled players with it. The games go a few ways as follows:

1. Premoving "brilliant" moves to a quick win

2. Crazy tactical exchange.... ?????... opponent doesnt see a tactic and win

3. Lose because down a pawn

It's a good way to learn chess for sure, and you can beat players at any level with it. Alapin much more solid though imo. I just avoid it all now with 1 d4

They both suck! The only reason I no longer play the Sicilian is because of 2.Nf3 and 3.d4!

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 is an Alapin.

So is 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5, leading to the 2...d5 alapin rather than the 2...Nf6 alamin.

So clearly you need to know the Alapin if you play the Smith-Moron Gambit.

OK, but the latter is a rather good version of Alapin for White, as Black has taken on d4 very early.