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.

Optimization · Systems & Chaos
Optimizing Grey Knight loadouts and campaign decisions against escalating Bloom infection timers.

Optimization · Systems & Chaos
Managing RNG-driven combat while solving the underlying base economy and research tree.
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters leans Optimization (Systems & Chaos); XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans Optimization (Systems & Chaos).
XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Turn-based; Willpower and cover angle require spatial not twitch skill
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Turn-based; no twitch inputs; cover placement has mild precision
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Chaos AI follows scripted threat escalation patterns
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Aliens follow scripted AI, never model your specific habits
XCOM: Enemy Unknown leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Nemesis Force activations, random Bloom spread, and loot drops create variance
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Hit chances, crit rolls, and mission spawns create constant RNG swings
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters
Grey Knight wargear, psychic powers, and campaign priority are tightly optimizable
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Squad composition, research order, and base economy are solvable
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.