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.

Execution · Practiced Mastery
A modern-war reboot following Tier 1 operators in Afghanistan.

Execution · Practiced Mastery
Tactical shooter precision built around planned approaches and synchronised takedowns.
Medal of Honor (2010) leans Execution (Practiced Mastery); Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier leans Execution (Practiced Mastery).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Medal of Honor (2010)
Modern gunplay in campaign and multiplayer
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier
Sync-shot timing and cover gunplay reward precision
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Medal of Honor (2010)
Competitive MP adds human prediction
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier
Multiplayer flanks involve humans; campaign AI is scripted
Medal of Honor (2010) leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Medal of Honor (2010)
Scripted campaign, modest MP randomness
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier
Encounters are designed set pieces
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Medal of Honor (2010)
Loadouts and map control are learnable
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier
Gunsmith loadouts and approach planning are the tactical layer
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.