It would depend, of course, on your aims and purposes. Academia generally rewards specialization over generalization. Doctoral Research, in particular takes you deep into the weeds of a normally quite narrow topic.
Survey papers, on the other hand, are evidence of generalization, though within a single field, usually. They demonstrate breadth, not depth. (See note at end)
Educators (as opposed to researchers) on the other hand value breadth, quite a lot. Most academic positions combine teaching and research, of course.
If you are wanting to apply to a PhD program, or for a research position, I think your deep and narrow papers will serve you well. If you are wanting to apply for a teaching (primarily) position, then breadth will be an asset.
In industry, on the other hand, the evaluations will be quite different. If you are hired to solve a particular problem, then the evaluation will be biased, at least a bit, on how quickly you can be productive (i.e. narrow and deep). But for a management position at the same firm, a wider and more comprehensive view is usually valued.
My advice to students is to study a lot of things broadly and a few things deeply. This seems (to me) to be a good balance.
I think, however, you are asking the question as a person who wants to enter a doctoral program. Unless you already find one tailored to your narrow interest, you will be well served if you are seen as someone who can relatively quickly move into a variety of research areas. It gives you a better choice of advisors than if you have already narrowed your interest.
Note that I interpret "survey" to mean a fairly wide net. It is also possible to "survey" a very narrow spectrum. In some sense the list of references in a dissertation form a survey of a narrow field. If that narrow view is what you actually intend, my answer might be quite different.