Draken vs F-104

2 different solutions for the same/similar goals, which one worked better in the end?:

from http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_draken.htm (perhaps biased in favor of the Draken)

In order to achieve supersonic flight, the wing had to be quite thin and have a low thickness to chord ratio (chord is the shortest distance between the leading and trailing edges of a wing). To achieve Mach 2.2 speed on the contemporary F-104 Starfighter, Lockheed had crammed everything into a long slim fuselage and made the wings little larger than the vertical tail! Although such thin, sharp wings gave impressive speed, they resulted in very high wing loading, very high takeoff and landing speeds and severely limited agility. Bratt and his team briefly considered this configuration, but noted its considerable shortcomings and took a totally different approach.

If the wing was made thick, a low thickness to chord ration could still be obtained by making the chord very long. This is where Bratt came up with a unique and highly successful wing planform that would be thick enough to hold large items like the landing gear and systems, yet still have a low drag coefficient. Saab initially envisaged a long, pure delta-winged aircraft with an incredibly large wing sweep angle of 70 degrees and a nose air intake.

As handling problems were foreseen with such a radical and advanced layout, the design was modified. The cranked delta wings began at the air intakes and were swept at 76 degrees, but halfway along the wings this was reduced to 57 degrees for the outer portions. The inner wing was very thick in order to accommodate the fuel and landing gear, while the outer portion was thinner and provided lift for short-field and low-speed operation while still keeping drag low enough for supersonic flight. This configuration was frozen under Saab’s Project 1250, a follow-on to the original Project 1200.