head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is reads, and it is a single point.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Optimizing pair-up chains and offspring builds to steamroll deterministically scripted maps.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Racing to secure relics and optimize unit upgrade chains in a hostile hex-grid wargame.
Fire Emblem Fates leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War 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 Fates
Turn-based menu play; no hand-speed demands
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
Hex turn-based; no physical precision ceiling
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Fire Emblem Fates
AI follows scripted attack priorities, not player modeling
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
AI factions follow fixed expansion doctrines without adaptive modelling
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Fates
Dual-strike/guard procs and hit rates inject meaningful RNG
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
Random relic placement and event spawns add meaningful hidden unknowns
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Fire Emblem Fates
Offspring seals, asset/flaw selection, and supports are deeply planned
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
Unit upgrade routing and resource building sequencing are deeply solvable
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.