On the mark there. What about the character of Krishna (an amalgamation of 3 tribal gods)? Especially the little child Krishna?
From the perspective of the story Mahabharata is superior, but the Ramayana has some great characters (Hanuman, Lakshmana, Sita, Ravana).
The Mahabharata's heroes are weaker characters, except for Krishna IMO.
Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties.
I don’t much care for Krishna as a character. Since he’s a god, a lot of what he does makes no sense and doesn’t need to either. He is supposed to be inscrutable. Such a character isn’t that interesting IMO.
Karna is a legend generated in recent times. In most editions of Mahabharata, he is willingly standing on the wrong side of justice willingly. He didn't even care for the well being of his supposedly friend Duryodhana. Here is a talk[0] and book[1] by Mahabharata researcher.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nge8qc7f_k&list=LL&index=35
[1] https://www.amazon.in/Mahabharata-Unravelled-Lesser-Known-We...
Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
My apologies but both statements doesn't stand if you read the original work of Ved Vyasa or a faithful translation of it. One single incident disproves both the statement. I am not a Mahabharata expert but this proves how false legends have spread around texts like Mahabharata and Ramayana.
Krishna went as diplomat to settle the dispute without war. As a final proposal, he offered to settle the dispute just for 5 villages. Duryodhana under influence of Karna said "I will not give land worth a needle's tip." and that was the end of all negotiations.
Edit: Please refer to my other comment for details about Karna's Character.
It's all my take though so subjective.