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
A classic dungeon-crawling RPG demanding careful party and resource management.
Pillars of Eternity leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land 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
Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land
turn-based menu combat, no physical skill
Pillars of Eternity leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land
fixed dungeon monsters, no adaptive opponent
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
Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land
random encounters, loot and hit-chance rolls
Pillars of Eternity 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
Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land
party building, dungeon mapping, stat optimization
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.