This is emblematic of a larger issue and portends inevitable future financial crisis.
Traditionally, a credit role is the training grounds of a future banker and risk manager (strictly speaking - not your Rolling Stones, populist definition). The credit role teaches how to identify and mitigate true financial risks within companies, markets, individuals, and the economy.
Compliance deals with regulation - regulation that got it wrong last time and will get it wrong next time. Compliance is not banking - you aren't learning to identify the real risks - just the ones that holier-than-thou regulators think are important. This is not the training grounds of future risk managers - all you would be learning is how to follow faulty regulation.
The issue is that you are even questioning between the two but given the current regulator environment, it makes sense to think that compliance can be a more stable and/or better position. Regulation is incentivising non-banking roles at banks - in effect creating a worse system in the long run. This is not an equilibrium that will make for a more stable banking system but it will appease the populace because it is what the politicians say the bank "deserve".