All other things being equal, in terms of pure generations of loss, there will generally be more loss in detail doing a scan and then printing vs using a high quality photographic reproduction, all other things being equal. You'll have two generations of loss because the image is being transferred twice with the scan then print approach vs one with the direct photographic transfer.
That said, all other things are rarely ever equal. Depending on the techniques, equipment and materials used, there can be an extremely high degree of variation in the quality of result that is produced. A cheap enlarger and grainy photo paper is pretty much always going to produce a lower quality result, where as high quality, well operated and highly precise enlarging equipment with archival photo papers will produce very near to the exact detail of the original negative as a 1:1 copy with no modification and will last an exceptionally long time if properly handled and cared for.
Similarly, a cheap scanner and ink based inkjet printer will produce a low quality image that can bleed and doesn't have good longevity, however a high quality scanner will be able to exceed the level of detail captured by the film negative itself, so minimal quality loss will occur and high end pigment printers and archival paper are able to achieve very high detail levels with prints that will hold their image for hundreds of years cared for properly and won't bleed after they dry.
There is certainly a degree of more difficulty in the digital process though if accuracy to the original image is the primary concern. You'll have to deal with both any noise introduced in the scan as well as making sure that the colors are captured faithfully in the scan. You will then also have to do the same for the print to make sure that the print matches the color accurately if you are looking for a high degree of accuracy to the original negative.
For a photo-paper, it basically consists of following the instructions correctly for development, but for the digital process, there is a fair degree more variability and in most cases, if you don't do some kind of post processing, the result is likely to be far lower. In fact, most consumer and even many professional scanners by default apply a lot of adjustments to film scans automatically to make them appear more correct since the default scan settings often do not produce an ideal image.
There is one other factor worth considering though, and that is the digital longevity of scans. Once a negative is digitized, it can be archived with no additional generations of loss as it is digital then. A high quality digital negative can be moved between hard drives and, to an extent, formats without losing additional detail. This is the ultimate in long term durability as long as the files are maintained in an accessible archival format and stored redundantly. (Prints will last longer than many individual storage mediums, but it's far easier to keep digital on current storage and move it to newer storage, thus giving it an advantage when well maintained.)