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

Reads · Competitive PvP
Stripped-down RTS where fog of war and single-unit control reduce the game to reading opponent direction under uncertainty.

Execution · Grand Arena
Hero-driven squad RTS where wargear optimization and ability timing combine with reading aggressive opponents.
Tooth and Tail leans Reads (Competitive PvP); Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II leans Execution (Grand Arena).
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Tooth and Tail
Single-unit control under fog maps precisely to mechanical skill
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Hero ability activation and squad retreat timing are mechanically demanding
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Tooth and Tail
Opponent faction and expansion direction must be constantly predicted
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Opponent army composition and hero focus must be predicted
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Tooth and Tail
Fog of war and food spawn placement create significant hidden info
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Retreat damage, wargear drops, and map control variance add uncertainty
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Tooth and Tail
Factory sequencing and map choke selection are learnable but flexible
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Wargear builds and ability upgrade sequences are optimizable
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.