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 · Pure Optimization
The deepest optimization puzzle in the Infinity Engine lineage, rewarding encyclopedic knowledge of 2nd Edition AD&D systems.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Pillars of Eternity leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Pause-and-plan removes twitch entirely; micro-placement has marginal value
Pillars of Eternity
Real-time-with-pause removes all twitch pressure from the player
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Enemies run scripted behaviour patterns, never modelling your tactics
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Loot randomization and enemy ability use create hidden-information layers
Pillars of Eternity
Hidden enemy immunities and ability distributions require investigation
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Mage spell sequences, dual-class builds and Spellhold routing define mastery
Pillars of Eternity
Per-encounter ability management and passive stacking define trial-of-iron mastery
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.