Talk about bias in wikipedia and passages with very few, if any, citations.
The satire interpretation is far from any kind of consensus. In fact, it's incredibly fringe outside of a few scholars from des Lumières. By far, most people assume it's descriptive of how he thought reality functions when completely removed from abstract (otherwise desirable) virtues.
His beloved free Repubblica Fiorentina had just failed. He was experiencing first hand how power changes hands. Whether one thinks the preamble is backhanded or not, it's directed towards -the Magnificent- Lorenzo: he needed Medici's approval. He was being favorable to the Prince.
In fact, he relinquishes debating republics right at the start. The whole thing is about principalities. From his point of view, he was understanding that, sometimes, princes (totalitarians) happen, and simply describes how they can have a stable and prosperous state while not being much of an ass.
That's not to say the book is to be interpreted literally, just like 1984 is not a manual either.
When put side by side with Discorsi, it's clear he doesn't fancy princes at all. As such, many people have taken to interpret it as guidance for how the common folk could overthrown a tyrant. And, yes, some have expressed that it was simply satire. Yet we don't have any declaration of intent beyond the preamble; and there he was intending to gain the Medici's favor. I personally think labeling it as satire (or deceit) is wishful thinking. But I could very well settle for decidedly cynical.
While it's clear that you have no idea about what analysts have to say, this bit makes me wonder if you even have any idea about what the text says.
dico che ciascuno principe debbe desiderare di essere tenuto pietoso e non crudele: non di manco debbe avvertire di non usare male questa pietà.
Nasce da questo una disputa: s’elli è meglio essere amato che temuto, o e converso. Rispondesi che si vorrebbe essere l’uno e l’altro; ma perché elli è difficile accozzarli insieme, è molto più sicuro essere temuto che amato, quando si abbia a mancare dell’uno de’ dua.
Concludo adunque, tornando allo essere temuto et amato, che, amando li uomini a posta loro, e temendo a posta del principe, debbe uno principe savio fondarsi in su quello che è suo, non in su quello che è d’altri: debbe solamente ingegnarsi di fuggire lo odio, come è detto.
There is no "better" anywhere but in the question. The answer is that it's desirable to be both, but safer to be feared. And that, in any case, what the wise prince should do is avoid hatred.