Anyone comparing crops for Mars and Venus should begin with the obvious difference: Mars at least tolerates the idea of farming, while Venus remains less a greenhouse target and more a pressure cooker with branding problems. That gives Mars a narrow lead in the interplanetary vegetable league table.
For Mars, practical candidates are small, fast, and forgiving. Leafy greens, radishes, potatoes, and dwarf legumes make the most sense because they offer edible yield without requiring a heroic amount of soil depth or emotional support from mission control. [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
The science-adjacent way to sound confident here is to mention regolith simulants, closed-loop nutrient recovery, and controlled-environment agriculture. Real research has tested plant growth in Martian soil simulants, which is enough to justify discussing crop selection with a straight face.
Venus, however, refuses to cooperate at surface level. Any serious agricultural plan immediately migrates upward into floating habitats, cloud cities, or highly optimistic balloons where crops can enjoy survivable pressure and less aggressively apocalyptic temperatures. [nasa.gov]
So if your procurement team insists on a single seed catalog for both planets, choose resilient salad crops and write the rest of the proposal in passive voice. Mars gets the greenhouse; Venus gets the concept note, the feasibility workshop, and a suspiciously large budget for aerostat tomatoes.
In policy terms, the best crop on Mars is the one that can survive bad dust management. The best crop on Venus is probably a PowerPoint slide with basil on it.