In all likelihood, if you know anything at all about Confucianism, you've learned it by reading about Taoism. There's a lot of readily available stuff on Taoism, and almost nothing on Confucianism. If that's the case, you're suffering under a two-fold bias.
The first is the obvious bias that Taoists and Confucians were often rivals, and sometimes enemies. To learn about Confucianism from Taoist sources is a little like asking a Christian Fundamentalist what she thinks of Evolution. You're going to learn something, but not about Evolution.
The second bias is more subtle. It has to do with the sort of Taoism that gets translated and sold in North America. Most Westerners would be very surprised to find that Taoist temples are quite well organised, and that for a long time they even had the equivalent of a pope. Trying to derive actual Taoism from the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu would be like trying to derive Roman Catholicism from the Four Gospels. It just can't be done. Now, this isn't an implied criticism of either Taoism or Roman Catholicism. The original texts were seeds, and its hard to tell what a plant will look like just from looking at the seed. But there isn't a lot of market for books on elaborate medieval ritual or recipes for immortality. They're just to far removed from Western consciousness.
So what is the key difference between Taoists and Confucians? Taoists are laid back, and Confucians are uptight? No, that doesn't bear out either historically or philosophically. Both schools of thought stressed that the Tao should be followed in a manner of natural ease and harmony.
Taoists are liberal and Confucians are conservative? No, that doesn't work either, because most social programs were instituted and managed by Confucians, while Taoists taught people to be content in their suffering.
Taoist emphasise nature, and Confucians emphasise civilisation? Well, we're almost there. The key difference between the Taoist and Confucian philosophy is that Confucians work from the assumption that humans and their society are a part of nature, and the Taoist work from the assumption that they aren't. For the Confucian, the human city is as much a part of nature as the beaver dam or the prairie dog town, and human society is as much a part of nature as a wolf pack or a flock of geese.
When you read early encounters between Confucians and Taoist hermits, you sense the bewilderment the Confucians are experiencing. How can these people be so unnatural as to abandon their families and their society? Do they think they are something other than human?
Now, in the West, it is generally and deeply assumed that humans and what they do are somehow apart from nature. Therefore, the West is working on an assumption that is radically different from one of the core Confucian assumptions. The irony is that the appeal of Taoism in the West is not that it is exotic and different, but that it seems exotic and different, while holding to the same basic assumptions.
None of this proves that one philosophy is superiour to the other. In fact, it is possible to assign them ying/yang values and assume that we need both. But when it comes to evaluating Confucianism, you have to know where they come from, and why they act the way they do. And the reason, in their mind, is that it is the natural way to act.