head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is variance, and it is a single point.

Optimization · Mind & Math
A colonial-era RTS adding home-city card shipments to classic Age economy play.

Optimization · Mind & Math
Tolkien RTS where build orders and army counters decide the war for Middle-earth.
Age of Empires III leans Optimization (Mind & Math); The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth leans Optimization (Mind & Math).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Age of Empires III
Unit micro and raid defense
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Micro and multitasking under real-time pressure
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Age of Empires III
Human deck and timing reads in ranked
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Multiplayer rewards predicting opponent army choices
Age of Empires III leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Age of Empires III
Map spawns and shipment ordering unknowns
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Scouting hides enemy composition until revealed
Age of Empires III leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Age of Empires III
Home-city decks are a build-crafting layer
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Build orders and counter units are largely solvable
A matching score does not mean a matching test. Two games can both sit at 10 on execution and demand completely different things of you - which is why the reasoning above matters more than the number beside it.
full breakdown
Age of Empires III →
full breakdown
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth →