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 · Systems & Chaos
Optimizing Grey Knight loadouts and campaign decisions against escalating Bloom infection timers.
Fire Emblem: Awakening leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters leans Optimization (Systems & Chaos).
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
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Turn-based; Willpower and cover angle require spatial not twitch skill
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
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Chaos AI follows scripted threat escalation patterns
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters 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
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Nemesis Force activations, random Bloom spread, and loot drops create variance
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem: Awakening
Marriage pairings and Second Seal reclass chains are the optimization spine
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Grey Knight wargear, psychic powers, and campaign priority are tightly optimizable
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.