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.

Optimization · Grand Arena
Fast tiberium-economy RTS with a once-thriving competitive 1v1 scene.

Optimization · Mind & Math
Tolkien RTS where build orders and army counters decide the war for Middle-earth.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars leans Optimization (Grand Arena); The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth leans Optimization (Mind & Math).
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Fast micro on squads and harvesters
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.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Ranked 1v1 rewards reading enemy tech paths
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Multiplayer rewards predicting opponent army choices
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Fog hides tech switches until scouted
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Scouting hides enemy composition until revealed
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Tight build orders and tiberium control
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
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars →
full breakdown
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth →