Both are susceptible to leaks via attacks on key stores - not if done right
I believe Dropbox provides versioning for changes within the last 30 or 60 days. I'm not sure how the other hosted storage folks do it.
In terms of key stores, I'll trust my passphrase and locally stored certificates long before I'll trust a third party to manage my certificates on my behalf. Google running all data through the digital proctology servers doesn't make inherently susceptible to leaks but it would clearly demonstrate that they where not employing encryption in the better way for the benefit of the end user. If there is an alternative, why would one knowingly accept a more insecurely implemented service?