Kubrick.
Like BackFire said, he made all types of movies,
from film noir, to war-drama, to historical epics,
to comedies (black comedies atleast), to horror,
to science fiction, to drama (Lolita...sort of).
The only things he didn't do was straight out
romance or action/adevntures films.
Besides, while Hitchcock's films are enjoyable
to atch, Kubrick's make you think, and often
stay with you for a while after the film ended.
While my vote goes to Kubrick, "Full Metal Jacket" isn't a masterpiece IMO, just because it's almost two totally different movies. That's flawed, but I still love it. "2001" I found to be WAY too dark, by that, I mean lighting, settings, etc. It's a very sleep movie.
Best example would be "The Shining". The tracking shot of Jack Nicholson trapsing through the snow ridge, clutching his arm with that scowl. That's master cinematography. Kubrick gets under your skin, Hitchcock I always found to be a little pretentious, from what little I've seen.
To compare these two is ridiculous. There is so much content to be taken into consideration for these two, when comparing there skills with the lens. Both of these cats had a technique that was never introduced into film before. I think kubrick had more cultivated skill, but i will say that i think hitchcock had a sharper vision of what he wanted and how to present it. Both contributed just as much. When ever you are watching a kubrick or hitchcock film, you know it is a kubrick or hitchcock film , and that is a good thing. These cats used pure camera style, not these horseshit editing techniques that are used by modern directors to gain a style.