I'll start by saying that if you found a cheaper way to hedge exactly the same risk, that would be arbitrage (assuming transaction costs don't invalidade the opposite position)
Without going into the numbers, although the pull to par effect is not very relevant here, you will always have basis risk so you can't really tell beforehand which is the best option.
For the bund it's less of a problem because its very liquid but check what happens with Italy futures at some delivery dates. Sometimes there is a big squeeze.
Then, the future has an implied repo rate for your initial price and you have margins. For the IRS you would probably have a CSA.
What is your underlying risk? Depending on that you will also have the asset swap to worry about if you choose one instead of the other.
Additionally, when choosing your option you would choose the appropriate dv01 in either case and the appropriate maturity. Futures will be less flexible because you only have a certain number of contracts (Schatz, Bobl, Bund, etc), certain settlement months and you will have to trade a whole number of contracts. Not only can you have the need to trade more than one future to avoid curve risk, you might also have to roll your position which is an additional variable. In this sense, the IRS is more flexible because you can match your risk more closely.
However, it's probably easier to trade futures, because for the IRS you will need an ISDA and CSA, and bid ask will probably be wider.