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

Execution · Competitive PvP
First-person medieval melee where feints and drags duel human reads.

Execution · Competitive PvP
Definitive competitive tactical FPS balancing aim mastery with team strategy.
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare leans Execution (Competitive PvP); Counter-Strike: Global Offensive leans Execution (Competitive PvP).
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
Swing manipulation, footwork, and parry timing
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Spray control and flick precision at the top
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
Feints and drags against adapting humans
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Anti-stratting and mid-round adaptation
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
Battlefield chaos with many players
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Information hidden until contact
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
Class loadouts and objective knowledge
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Utility lineups, economy, and default strats
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.