The question is hard to answer not because of its colloquial character but because it tries to establish a comparison bewteen two predictions at the TeV scale sustained by two very different theoretical frameworks :

 - the prediction of supersymmetric particles is made in the context of quantum renormalizable theory with fields interacting in a Minkowski 4D space-time;
 - the existence of a fine structure (two-sheets) of spacetime comes with a spectral action principle on an almost-commutative geometric setting.

Despite this fundamental difference, I think it should be interesting to compare them, debate about their mathematical and observational consistency as two effective theories at the TeV scale. I understand **effective theories** in a [modern viewpoint][1]. 

I think it's worth emphasizing that **the technical naturalness issue of the Standard Model Higgs boson exists only if one assumes that it is embedded in a larger renormalizable theory** that goes along the line of conventional QFT (I would appreciate to be corrected if I am wrong on this statement). 

Insofar as the spectral action principle, applied on a crude almost-commutative geometry and with a Planck-scale cut-off, already proves to be able to deliver the Einstein-Hilbert and the Standard Model Yang-Mill-Higgs terms, one could *expect* that noncommutative geometry offers *another embedding* of the Standard Model to some kind of UV completion. 


  


  [1]: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic473482.files/22-nonrenormalizable.pdf