I love character-driven narratives, so DS9 is easily the best Star Trek for me that I've seen. I think the only series that I haven't seen is Lower Decks.

I would claim that Voyager is objectively worse than DS9, though. A big part of it is how many terrible episodes come from each series. With DS9, there are only a few episodes sprinkled here and there that are terrible. With Voyager, it had to be at least 1 out of every 3 episodes that were terrible.

Of course, these two series have completely different standards. Both standards are about whether they deliver an episode that is fulfilling and makes sense.

DS9 is completely serial. A good show has character development and progresses the main plot due to some event or other intrigue that happens. If you don't like Star Treks where they "boldly stay home", then all of the Vic Fontaine episodes would be terrible, but Vic was like this perfect tool to try to round out all of the character development at the series end.

On the other hand, a good Voyager episode is a sort of alien of the week. That's what would make sense, because they were traveling in a straight line home. Yet they nonsensically had all sorts of recurring characters that they came across. Recurring races is fine. In fact, you'd almost expect to have like one or two major races that are the villains per season... but recurring characters? Really??

Voyager could have been the perfection of Roddenberry's ideal Star Trek. Almost purely episodic. Heroic cast solving problems every episode. They even have the best excuse for taking the ship into the most stupidly dangerous situations. They were desperate for supplies to get home. I don't know that any Star Trek had such an easy set up. How did they have so many bad episodes??