As a psychologist, I will tell you that it depends on what you are looking for. The objective is that you can lead a life where your problems do not incapacitate you. Both the figure of the psychiatrist and the psychologist will focus on this goal. So, what do I choose? The psychiatrist will use a medical model based on solving problems based on chemical compounds, these compounds acting to alleviate the symptomatology of the problem. If you have, for example, anxiety, the psychiatrist will give you an anxiolytic to reduce this level of anxiety. This does not act at the root of the problem (you may have anxiety because acting in public causes you to have an aversive reaction, which in turn provokes anxiety). The psychiatrist does not have to bother to discover the reasons behind the problem. Why, if with the anxiolytic your andiedad decays ?. If you think that by eliminating the symptomatology of the problem you can lead a life where that problem does not incapacitate you, great.
The psychologist will generally try to get to the root of the problem, for example, in the case described above (anxiety - aversive reaction to act in public), based on the performance of the activity properly, perhaps through a cognitive restructuring or a systematic desensitization, You can eliminate anxiety. This has its pros and cons.
Pros: speed. Medical model based on the hypothetical deductive model
Cons: you depend on the chemical compound
Pros: you will be self-sufficient
Cons: slowness (variable depending on the case). Each branch has different ways of treating the client / patient, and not all are endorsed by the hypothetical deductive method.
It also depends on what type of psychologist you go to, influenced by the philosophy that underlies each branch of psychology. In my opinion, if I had to go to a psychologist, I would go to someone who is behavioral or cognitive-behavioral. Not because they are better, but because empirically and experimentally their work is supported by the scientific method