I personally see utilitarianism as a fairly poor moral philosophy. Firstly, it requires each and every human being to be a perfect moral calculator in a variety of different, and usually highly complex, circumstances, something which the average human cannot possibly hope to achieve. It struggles under the weight of what Robert Nozick (for example) termed the 'utility monster'; i.e. when one individual would gain/lose a far greater amount of utility from a given action than any other individuals, which thereby complicates a moral analysis yet further. Finally, it justifies what many would regard as appalling moral deeds; would any sane person consider that the murder of 99 individuals to save 100 necessarily increases 'overall utility' in any meaningful way?
To me, Kantianism and moral skepticism are two diametrical, yet still more compelling, theories than utilitarianism and consequentialism generally.