Is the Vienna better than the London and why?

Comparing whether the Vienna is better or worse than the London is like asking if you prefer Lima Beans or Brussel Sprouts. Different Strokes for Different Folks. I play a Defense to d4 where the London isn't so great, and have very few issues against the Vienna in a regular, over the board time control.

There is almost no room for creativity in the London. It is basically the same boring and stupid position every game. Different strokes for different folks, but some folks leave much to be desired. In contrast the Vienna is a fascinating position. It can be played in many ways and leads to very unique positions.

Still there is some value in experimenting as a player, you shouldn't play the same position from now until your chess journey ends, you'll stop growing. But there are alot better ways of branching out than by playing the London.

 :tongue

If you enjoy both, play both. I find that openings require a lot of memory to get better at with intermittent play. 1.e4 can be met with more than e5. That takes up my memory as I face e6, c6, d6, d5, c5 so often that adding variety will make me forget what I should be doing in those games. Also I play the Sicilian as black so my memory is being stretched on opening theory. Then if I play bullet I face Alekhine specialists who know it 15 moves deep even when rated 700. For me if I switch to Vienna from Nf3 I dont have to face Petrov any more, but I would miss my Evans gambit. If I play the London I would have to learn more d4 opening theory for the side lines. I currently side step it as black with the Dutch. Would also rather play some QG or Catalan games than London all the time as well, so would want to learn that. Colle and Zukertort systems are great as well.