I think it would be more fair to say that neither are flyable following a catastrophic flight control malfunction.
The auto land question needs to be turned on its head to a degree. Try not to think 'Why would we manually land a fighter with auto land?'. Better to say 'Why would we rely on auto land when it really should be the last resort to getting the boys back on board?'.
F-35B would appear to be the easier of the two to land when 'full up'. SSSEOWTF is absolutely the expert on this.
F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne aircraft. It can be landed without auto land by anyone who has invested the correct amount of embarked time in gaining the skill.
F-35C will be the same as any other carrier borne or land based aircraft. It needs to be flown and trained for bearing possible failures in mind.
Auto land is the same as any other system - it fails. Even when it works - it fails to deliver the correct result.
For what it's worth the F-18 also has auto throttles as well - but you don't use them until cleared to do so, having ably demonstrated you can 'do it yourself' first.
You want the longest reach? Buy the F35C. You want assurance and supervision? Learn to cat and trap and keep the skills fresh. Go to sea and stay there.
I really don't see what the fuss about long embarkations, det length and sea time is...this thing's always been a Maritime Strike asset hasn't it? They go to sea, it's what they do. CAS even mentioned F-35C and the Maritime Strike capability in his post SDSR letter to the RAF. (The one where he says the F-35C is more capable...)