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.

Reads · Grand Arena
Modern-warfare RTS with general-specific powers where faction counters and production efficiency are central.

Optimization · Grand Arena
Blizzard's hero-centric RTS where build-order theory meets surgical unit micro against humans.
Command & Conquer: Generals leans Reads (Grand Arena); Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos leans Optimization (Grand Arena).
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer: Generals
Supply drop timing and unit special abilities require precise activation
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
Micro of heroes and units decides fights
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Command & Conquer: Generals
Three-faction asymmetry and general powers must be predicted constantly
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
Scouting and out-guessing a human opponent's tech
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer: Generals
Supply depot placement is map-fixed; minimal in-game RNG
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
Creep routes and item drops add randomness
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer: Generals
General power sequencing and unit composition are well-solvable
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
Build orders, creeping routes, and matchup theory run deep
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.