I would probably think about it in these ways (not in any particular order) --

1. What's the likelihood I'll stick around with 2 if she were the only choice I had (especially given her style of working)? Right now, 2 seems appealing because 1 is all I know and well, familiarity breeds contempt (and children but nevermind, that).

2. Why the need for either 1 or 2 or anyone at all to "push" for changes rather than having it be self-driven? I'd find that in and of itself worth exploring in therapy.

3. Related to the point above, is there something about having someone be "nice" that particularly feels weak / boring / disempowering / ineffective / artificial or unreal (or something along those lines) versus someone who isn't nice seeming coming across as being the opposite of all of the above (effective / powerful / empowering / real etc)? If yes, where's that particular story line coming from?

It could be that one or either of them is the better fit for you or neither of them are but it would help perhaps to know why that seems to be the case.