It's not a given that any of these are the right play. With zero added money, you are getting exact odds on your money and tournaments are a long shot. Obviously you have to factor in being a better player than some, but in the $10K Main Event this theory has gone right out the window. And in the larger buy-in events the talent pool is much stronger.
What I'm talking about is managing variance. Very few of these poker pros have enough money to play the kind of stakes they do without assistance. This is why they run it twice when they get all the money in, because they can't afford to be flipping coins for $100,000. Tournaments are the worst thing for consistency in poker income. You're a favorite to lose 90% of the time. You also lose time, time that could be used to make consistent wins in games you know you can beat a healthy percentage of the time.
But to actually answer your question, the bracelets are the only thing that matter beyond the money. It doesn't matter if it's a $1500 buy-in or $50,000. If you wear a bracelet, you are the world champion at something. Win any other title and you just won a lot of money. It doesn't matter where it came from.
It's kind of like winning the Memorial vs Worlds. You might actually make more money at the Memorial some years, but nobody is going to care a couple years down the road. Win Worlds and you'll be remembered for a long time.