That depends on facts a general answer cannot see. What can be said is that the two are different frameworks: an employment-based route depends on a sponsor and qualifications, while the Gold Card as published rests on a gift to the U.S. government and a processing fee. Ask how they interact before changing anything.
Get the interaction question answered first
The important question is not which is better in the abstract but what happens to the existing file if another route is pursued, and that requires someone who can see the whole picture: the current status, any pending application, the employer's position and the household's timeline. Ask it explicitly and get the answer before any payment or withdrawal. Meanwhile, read the official program materials directly so the comparison is between what each route actually offers rather than between one that is understood and one that is described second hand. Where the existing route is close to completion, the argument for disturbing it is usually weak, and where it has stalled for a reason nobody can articulate, that reason is worth understanding before spending money elsewhere.
Hypothetical example: a Tyendinaga laboratory-procurement manager is told that a prospective U.S. employer can make a payment and eliminate every other immigration question. Preserve the written claim, then compare it with the latest official terms. The central issue is whether the framework actually covers the applicant's situation and who is permitted to make the required payment. Do not surrender an existing lawful route because of a sales description or an unofficial summary. Ask for the governing official instruction in writing and treat any answer that cannot identify it as unverified marketing.