Which one of these would most likely sustain life?

You have not told us any of the necessary orbital parameters, or planetary system characteristics, so it is impossible to say.

An object must orbit in the so called "GOldilocks zone". Most importantly (and seldom mentioned), it must have a nearly circular orbit. It is not good enough if the planet has a highly elliptical orbit with an AVERAGE distance in the Goldilocks zone.

The object must be in a system that is stable enough for the planet to exist undisturbed for billions of years. Our solar system has such a stability. It is the only planetary system known to be thus stable.

The mass of the planet is useless. They might be made from shitt for all we know. They must have a suitable composition to initiate and sustain the necessary biochemistry upon which life is based.

Finally, you do realise that pure liquid water is an extremely finicky material. A little too cold and it turns to ice, a little too hot and it vaporises. Liquid water is likely to be extremely rare in the universe. A great deal would have to be known about a planetary system before any estimate could be made of pure liquid water on the surface of any of it's planets

I leave the vote to those advocates of less rigorous sciences.

Cheers!

A moon orbiting 47 Ursae Majoris with a mass of 1 Earth

Both are sun-like stars with high metalicity, but 16 Cygni is a triple system with a Jupiter-sized planet in an eccentric orbit only a little more than 1 AU from the star. This would make an earth-like planet in the habitable zone unlikely.

Moon orbiting 47 Ursae.

16 Cygni Bb