Personally, HDR is not my style, so I prefer the original the most (it's really a nice shot; just needs a little fill light in a few areas).
BUT, between the before and after HDR, I think the before HDR is more pleasing. I see you added fill light in the edit, which is good. But it looks like you also increased overall contrast and lost quite a bit of detail as a result. Also, I know it's popular with these HDR photos, but it's oversaturated. I also prefer the more "gold/blue" tone of the original HDR to the "orange/turquoise" of the edit. Did you play with color channels/balance there?
Don't forget that the purpose of HDR is to regain detail you cannot get in a single exposure. Take a look at the buildings across the river in each image. Your first one actually has the most detail; you lost a lot to shadows in the HDR somehow. The same is true of the tree leaves in the top right. You did get some additional detail on the roof of the building left-center, but then in the edit it got covered with the contrast adjustment (or is it a vignette).
Anyway, I'm not trying to be overly harsh, but provide some constructive criticism. You clearly have a good eye and like I said, I enjoy the original very much. Just try to keep some of the pointers in mind as you keep developing your style
Edit: I missed that you said the bracketing images were virtual. That's what's going to make the HDR not as effective. The virtual copies don't properly emulate (in fact, it's literally impossible) the actual changes in exposure that you would get if you actually took 3 separate images with the camera. I'm willing to bet this will solve half of your problems with loss of detail.