PNG vs West Papua

Hi,

I would like to know which is a better place for travel, Papua New Guinea or West Papua in Indonesia. I expect to spend about 2 months in the area in August/September.

My main interests are cultural, villages, landscapes, wildlife and trekking and generally experiencing a different culture; I am a budget traveler.

I suspect the right answer might be "both" since I might have time to experience the highlights of both places, but I was wondering, are they basically quite similar, and PNG has the edge because it is an independent nation and its culture is less diluted by external influences like, say, Indonesian influence, or is this not really a factor? Are there any other factors I should consider when deciding between one and the other? I am not that worried by the security factor in PNG, and both places seem to be as costly, right?

cheers

West Papua is MUCH cheaper and safer.
It is also easier to reach intact nature there as the road system is much more limited than in PNG.

In PNG, you will find it easier to really get to know the locals and the culture as English is widely spoken there. I would also say PNG has preserved more of the traditional culture - do note that "traditional" does NOT equal "primitive" in my definition! The people of PNG also tend to be more hospitable and less money-minded than in Asian-influenced West Papua.

In reality, the two places do feel surprisingly different.
I love both and would find it hard to pick one over the other.

If you do devote 2 months for the trip, you should have a great time in either.
In fact you could even try and combine the best of both, the Sepik region of PNG and the highlands of West Papua, by crossing between them overland.

Laszlo, you the man for sure, thanks a lot, very helpful reply!