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.

Optimization · Mind & Math
Tolkien RTS where build orders and army counters decide the war for Middle-earth.

Reads · Mind & Math
Cold-War-gone-hot tactical RTS with no base building, just role-based unit warfare and nukes.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth leans Optimization (Mind & Math); World in Conflict leans Reads (Mind & Math).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Micro and multitasking under real-time pressure
World in Conflict
Fast tactical micro and ability timing under fire
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Multiplayer rewards predicting opponent army choices
World in Conflict
Team multiplayer hinges on predicting enemy drops
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Scouting hides enemy composition until revealed
World in Conflict
Limited intel on enemy reinforcement choices
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
Build orders and counter units are largely solvable
World in Conflict
Unit counters and tactical-aid economy are learnable
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.