If you can live with the basic looking fonts of the 34401A it is probably the best all rounder, but these meters are getting quite expensive to buy used. If you buy a Keithley 2000 then make sure the display is still fairly bright as they can fade over time to become very dim.
How is the 34401A different form the Keithley 2000?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by different, but in terms of using them everyday for bench use, the display fonts of the 34401A are much bigger and easier to read. So this helps make it much nicer to use. I don't think there's much between them in terms of accuracy, but other people will know more about that side of things than me. The 34401A looks and feels a bit flimsy and cheap compared to the 2000 but this improves if the rubber boot surrounds are fitted.
If the choice is for a second luxury bench meter that mainly gets used for logging and critical measurements, I would opt for the Keithley 2015THD as it offers the DSP modes and it can measure SINAD and THD and it also has a built in audio source that is quite accurate.
If it helps, I've got one of each of these meters, a Fluke 45, a Keithley 2015THD a Keithley 2000 and an Agilent 34401A although I've only had the 34401A a couple of days. I've used lots of 34401A meters at work though. For me, the Keithley 2015THD is the most versatile meter but I couldn't tolerate using it as an everyday meter on the bench. The Fluke 45 is much nicer to use in this respect.