In what context?

If the group did not exist, are you, the individual, in some peril?
If so, the group outweighs the individual.
If not, the individual outweighs the group.

It is very rare that the individual is more important. In a society, the good of the whole generally outweighs the good of the individual.

To answer your question you should clarify what "important" means to you - it's a very relative concept. Example: If I had to chose between family (representative of a group) and a best friend (=individual) I would have chose a friend - but that is purely on "instinct". Objectively looking a family aka group would be a much wiser choice (more support, moral and financial; always there...). So, which criteria of "important" would you pick?

Groups are made up of individuals. An individual can exist without a group. But a group cannot exist without individuals. So I'm going to say individuals are more important.

Groups are nothing without individuals, but it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to survive without the group. We would certainly not be conversing on the Web right now if the group were not so important.