Many Star Wars fans hate me when I mention this, but Star Wars isn't "science" at all. No science, all fiction. It's a hotch-potch futuristic steampunk setting. And the more you look at it, the more steampunk it gets. It's sci:fi ratio would be around 1:99
Star Trek is noticably more sci-fi. It's more consistent in technology and terminology. It's not realistic, it also fully qualifies for the fiction identifier in its categorization. I'd say, 30:70. I don't think many sci-fi books or movies actually go far over 50:50. No, not those "hard scifi" books either. They still exist on the premise that the technology, at its core, is fictional. That the advances made with that technology is fictional. That there is actually a story (more fiction) running through the book, for which the technology acts as a sort of background.
Going past that 50:50 ratio moves the book or movie into the more theoretical books, making predictions, working out and extrapolating current trends and theories. Or, which are also a great read, though the ones you should be the most careful with before believing them, the conspiracy books, which tend to use a LOT of real life and official data and technological references, but make a habit to fill in the blanks, often in a way that makes it hard to distinguish the little fiction from the lot of fact. Another problem with them is that they may omit some facts, and obviously, make no mention of any facts that were left out. Most books about JFK's assassination fall in this category, as do flat-earth readings and books denying the moonlandings. Books by Erich von Däniken are also a fun example of the 90% fact /10% fiction books.