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.

Execution · Competitive PvP
A rugby simulation testing input timing and tactical play against opponents.

Execution · Competitive PvP
Large-battle aim and positioning with light prediction against human players.
Rugby World Cup 2015 leans Execution (Competitive PvP); Star Wars: Battlefront II leans Execution (Competitive PvP).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Rugby World Cup 2015
Timing passes, tackles, and kicks needs consistent inputs
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Aimbot dominates infantry fights and starfighter dogfights
Rugby World Cup 2015 leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Rugby World Cup 2015
Human opponents can be read in multiplayer matches
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Human opponents in multiplayer create modest prediction play
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Rugby World Cup 2015
Ball bounces and AI add some unpredictability
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Spawns, vehicle availability and hero pickups add chaos
Rugby World Cup 2015 leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Rugby World Cup 2015
Set plays, team selection, and tactics form a systems layer
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Class choice and map control reward learned plans
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.