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
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Mastering interlocking social engineering and tech-tree systems on a programmable alien world.
Pillars of Eternity leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 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.
Pillars of Eternity
Real-time-with-pause removes all twitch pressure from the player
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Turn-based; no twitch element at all
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
AI faction leaders follow fixed personality scripts
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Pillars of Eternity
Hidden enemy immunities and ability distributions require investigation
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Xenofungus and psi combat add some irreducible randomness
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Pillars of Eternity
Per-encounter ability management and passive stacking define trial-of-iron mastery
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Tech tree, social engineering, and base placement are essentially 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.