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 · Pure Optimization
Alternate-history RTS where economy management and build orders win wars.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Tolkien-licensed RTS with freeform base building and large-scale faction warfare.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Micro and base management under time pressure
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Moderate APM demands, forgiving unit control
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
PvP skirmish rewards predicting enemy pushes
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Human opponents in skirmish reward prediction
Command & Conquer: Red Alert leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Fog of war conceals army composition
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Mostly open information, light randomness
Command & Conquer: Red Alert leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Ore economy and build orders decide games
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Economy, base layout, and faction counters drive wins
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: Red Alert →
full breakdown
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II →