Help choosing between two History PhD offers?

The bottom line is, that on balance, A seems like it has the upper hand. The supervisor is good, the project is good, my lifestyle will be good, my career prospects are good, I'll challenge myself and gain new skills and experiences. The prestige is the prestige. Nothing about it is bad. It's only because I have this niggling feeling that you're supposed to do a PhD based on the supervisor/project above all. And the B supervisor is so cool and the project is so different and impressive, and where the future lies. If I know for sure that I'm going to have the opportunity to maybe work with him one day in the future after my PhD, I could do the A one without any regrets. Likewise, I don't want to go to B and regret turning down an offer to be at A, with all the access it gives me. Both are excellent options but neither are perfect. Should I prioritise project/supervisor above lifestyle, prestige, practicality? Or should I take the one that gives the best overall package?

Hey guys! I need some advice on choosing between two PhD offers. Both are in History, on similar, dream, topics, both are fully funded CDAs. I'm so excited by both and have no idea which to go for. Let's say one is at A and one is at B, both prestigious unis but A is significantly more prestigious than B. I am in a ridiculously privileged situation that I never expected to be in, and would take either option in a heartbeat.

Topic:

The topics are slightly different, but I would absolutely love to do either of them. They follow similar themes, but with slightly different geographical focuses. At B, I feel that my theoretical preferences/interests to do something new and innovative are built into the fabric of the project. At A, I have been assured that I will have the freedom to take the project in any direction that I want, so I can do the same there hopefully, it just isn't written into the aims of the project quite as explicitly. I wrote that I wanted to do that in my proposal, and they accepted me after reading it. So based on where I want to take the project, I'm really excited by it.

Partner Orgs:

The range of sources I could be exploring at the B one seem slightly more expansive and varied than the A ones. The partner institutions at B are ever so slightly less prestigious but very interesting and have a history of some fascinating PhD projects. A's partner institution is amazing and they're doing great work. They're just slightly less experimental. I would honestly be over the moon to work with either.

Supervisors:

The B supervisors are white men, the A supervisors are brown women. But B in general has more POC doctoral students than A. As a POC it's important for me to be surrounded by other POC. The lead supervisors at both seem so amazing and really really well respected, inspiring, and lovely. A would be less hands-on supervision than B. B supervisor's work is a bit more closely aligned to his project. I find his work to be more exciting and interesting, more varied and innovative. It would be a dream to work with him as I've admired his work for years. I'm worried that if I don't go with him, I'll regret giving up the opportunity to work with him. With the A supervisor, her work is great too, she seems super interesting, nice and supportive. I don't have any complaints about her, it's just that in comparison, her work is slightly more run of the mill, but still well regarded. She claims to be excited about me doing interdisciplinary work that goes beyond her geographical interests. She's also big in documentaries, as a political commentator etc, which is also important to me and something I want to do in my own career.

Resources and networking:

The career prospects are materially similar at both in terms of the funding, work experience, and travel opportunities provided by my funding award. The network I'd have access to at A is much larger, and I can draw on the work and advice of other scholars there. There are many more research seminars and the libraries at A are unparalleled. B has some good stuff going on, and I loved the vibe of the department when I was a research assistant during my undergrad there, it would be safe, cosy, welcoming. A is more of an unknown, but feels like a step up in the world. Yet, I have less certainty on whether or not I'd be happy there. On the other hand, my B supervisor said that the A project is following a model which is slightly going out of fashion, and there will be less postdoc posts available for those who have followed that style, whereas the B one is more experimental and exciting. I'd like to challenge the A project's model if I can, and follow more of the B one's approach, as I do agree with him that one is more stodgy than the other. Nonetheless I really want to support the work of women of colour in academia. At both I'd push myself out of my comfort zone by networking, speaking in conferences, maybe teaching, etc.

University and lifestyle:

I have been struggling with my mental health recently and it's really important to me to live somewhere and have access to a community that is welcoming and vibrant and helps me to get my life back on track again. In A I would have the chance to live somewhere beautiful, in easy reach of my family, but still have independence. I would have access to a multitude of libraries, workspaces and cafes in a nice city. I'd be in walking distance of the dept, my supervisor, and talks, conferences, events etc. I could engage in university life, join societies etc, and hopefully improve my social life a lot. At B, I'd be spending most of my time on buses or trains and spending all my money on travel. Campus is in the middle of nowhere so I'd either have to live in London or a surrounding town, so would feel very isolated. Both have good access to nature and I could probably do UK trips on the weekends. Meeting my supervisor is much more difficult and involves planning whole days around being on campus. For evening events, I'd have to stay over night in hotels or hope that I would make friends near campus who's places I could stay at. I'd feel a lot less settled and unable to build a life. There's only one small library and not many cafes or nice spaces to work in. I would be less likely to have friends living near me, and be less able to engage in university life, societies etc due to being so far away. I'd feel more dependent on my family and more likely to spend long periods of time in a dysfunctional family home, rather than building my own life.

The bottom line is, that on balance, A seems like it has the upper hand. The supervisor is good, the project is good, my lifestyle will be good, my career prospects are good, I'll challenge myself and gain new skills and experiences. The prestige is the prestige. Nothing about it is bad. It's only because I have this niggling feeling that you're supposed to do a PhD based on the supervisor/project above all. And the B supervisor is so cool and the project is so different and impressive, and where the future lies. If I know for sure that I'm going to have the opportunity to maybe work with him one day in the future after my PhD, I could do the A one without any regrets. Likewise, I don't want to go to B and regret turning down an offer to be at A, with all the access it gives me. Both are excellent options but neither are perfect. Should I prioritise project/supervisor above lifestyle, prestige, practicality? Or should I take the one that gives the best overall package?