I've been really happy with images from Kodak Gold 100, 200, and a Kodak 400 (now called "Kodak MAX"). The 400 really impressed me. I was led to expect something less than ideal, and honestly, I could not identify the 400ISO shots from 100ISO or 200ISO rolls based on the print alone. The nice thing is these films are readily and cheaply available pretty much anywhere you buy groceries, gas, or cigarettes. Colors are bright, accurate, and prints are very sharp and detailed. Grain is not visible in 4x6 prints.
I've never liked the images from Fuji Super HQ, which is either the Superia line or no longer around. The latter would be the best thing to happen, IMHO. I took some good images with it, but the colors were never even close to as vivid as they looked like at the time, like having a gray filter :/ Maybe just my experience.
I did shoot a few rolls of the free promotion new Kodak Portra. NC400 was similar to the Fuji Super HQ, but not as bad. The VC 400 and 160 were similar to the Kodak Gold films. Admittedly, I was not using them under controlled lighting, but for general outdoor photography.
I'd buy the Gold films over the Portra films for street photography, and the Gold films are a couple bucks cheaper to boot. I'd really hesitate before using Fuji color negative film again, given my past experience with it. Unless they've really changed it, and since I can get Kodak Gold anywhere, I just don't see any reason to bother.