head to head
Neither is harder. They score identically on all four axes, so the difference between them is in kind, not degree.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Maximizing Emblem synergies and inherited skills to dismantle precisely scripted enemy maps.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.
Fire Emblem Engage 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 Engage
Turn-based; Engage ring timing is menu-driven not reactive
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 Engage
Scripted enemy phases never adapt to player tendencies
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Engage
Hit and avoid stats tighten variance; Engage mechanics are reliable
Pillars of Eternity
Hidden enemy immunities and ability distributions require investigation
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Engage
Emblem pairing, skill inheritance, and unit positioning are exhaustively solvable
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.