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

Execution · Practiced Mastery
Planning approaches with recon tools, then executing them under lethal fire.

Execution · Practiced Mastery
Artillery aim under wind combined with fort economy planning against human opponents.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter leans Execution (Practiced Mastery); 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.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Lethal firefights punish sloppy aim and exposure
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.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Multiplayer squads outflank and adapt to your habits
Worms Forts: Under Siege
Human opponents to outguess on building and target priorities
Worms Forts: Under Siege leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Enemy placements are scripted-but-unknown on first attempt
Worms Forts: Under Siege
Wind, crates and terrain damage randomize turns
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Drone recon, squad orders and approach planning decide missions
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.
full breakdown
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter →
full breakdown
Worms Forts: Under Siege →