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

Execution · Competitive PvP
Large-battle aim and positioning with light prediction against human players.

Execution · Practiced Mastery
Artillery aim under wind combined with fort economy planning against human opponents.
Star Wars: Battlefront II leans Execution (Competitive PvP); Worms Forts: Under Siege 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.
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Aimbot dominates infantry fights and starfighter dogfights
Worms Forts: Under Siege
Manual trajectory aiming under wind decides each shot
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Human opponents in multiplayer create modest prediction play
Worms Forts: Under Siege
Human opponents to outguess on building and target priorities
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Spawns, vehicle availability and hero pickups add chaos
Worms Forts: Under Siege
Wind, crates and terrain damage randomize turns
Worms Forts: Under Siege leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Star Wars: Battlefront II
Class choice and map control reward learned plans
Worms Forts: Under Siege
Fort placement and weapon-tech economy reward planning
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.