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
Engineering unit pairings and reclass paths to dominate maps whose enemy scripts are fully mappable.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.
Fire Emblem: Awakening leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Pillars of Eternity 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.
Fire Emblem: Awakening
No twitch elements; pair-up placement is the only spatial decision under time
Pillars of Eternity
Real-time-with-pause removes all twitch pressure from the player
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem: Awakening
Enemies follow simple aggro patterns on fixed maps
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Fire Emblem: Awakening leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Fire Emblem: Awakening
Hit and crit rates plus random level-up stats create run variance
Pillars of Eternity
Hidden enemy immunities and ability distributions require investigation
Pillars of Eternity leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Fire Emblem: Awakening
Marriage pairings and Second Seal reclass chains are the optimization spine
Pillars of Eternity
Per-encounter ability management and passive stacking define trial-of-iron mastery
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.