On value of survey papers
It would depend, of course, on your aims and purposes. Academia generally rewards specialization over generalization. Doctoral Research, in particular takes you deep into the weeds of a normally quite narrow topic. 

Survey papers, on the other hand, are evidence of generalization, though within a single field, usually. They demonstrate breadth, not depth. (See note at end)

Educators (as opposed to researchers) on the other hand value breadth, quite a lot. Most academic positions combine teaching and research, of course. 

If you are wanting to apply to a PhD program, or for a research position, I think your deep and narrow papers will serve you well. If you are wanting to apply for a teaching (primarily) position, then breadth will be an asset. 

In industry, on the other hand, the evaluations will be quite different. If you are hired to solve a particular problem, then the evaluation will be biased, at least a bit, on how quickly you can be productive (i.e. narrow and deep). But for a management position at the same firm, a wider and more comprehensive view is usually valued. 

My advice to students is to study a lot of things broadly and a few things deeply. This seems (to me) to be a good balance. 

I think, however, you are asking the question as a person who wants to enter a doctoral program. Unless you already find one tailored to your narrow interest, you will be well served if you are seen as someone who can relatively quickly move into a variety of research areas. It gives you a better choice of advisors than if you have already narrowed your interest. 



Note that I interpret "survey" to mean a fairly wide net. It is also possible to "survey" a very narrow spectrum. In some sense the list of references in a dissertation form a survey of a narrow field. If that narrow view is what you actually intend, my answer might be quite different.