head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is reads, 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
Mastering interlocking social engineering and tech-tree systems on a programmable alien world.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 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
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Turn-based; no twitch element at all
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Enemies run scripted behaviour patterns, never modelling your tactics
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
AI faction leaders follow fixed personality scripts
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
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Xenofungus and psi combat add some irreducible randomness
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Mage spell sequences, dual-class builds and Spellhold routing define mastery
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Tech tree, social engineering, and base placement are essentially 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.