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 · Practiced Mastery
Tests solving suppress-and-flank squad puzzles more than raw shooting.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Solving guard patrols and survival systems through planned stealth routing.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery); Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater 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.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood
Deliberately loose aim makes positioning matter more than twitch
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater
Stealth movement and CQC need care, not twitch mastery
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood
AI flanks reactively but follows mappable suppress-and-flank logic
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater
Guards follow vision-cone scripts, not adaptive minds
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood
AI repositioning varies runs slightly between attempts
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater
Patrol routes unknown only until observed
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood
Suppress-then-flank squad puzzles are the entire core loop
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater
Camo, routing, food and boss knowledge solve every encounter
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
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood →
full breakdown
Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater →