is hardenedbsd more secure than openbsd?

nuudul

20-100

Having a secure base OS is one thing, but nobody uses just a base OS. The only reason why you'd need an OS is to run applications.
Now, HardenedBSD being a FreeBSD derivative, it has significantly more software packages available than OpenBSD, and each piece of software you install comes with its own set of vulnerabilities.
OpenBSD is thus statistically more secure than HardenedBSD because you have fewer occasions to use it. 😉

rvp

20-100 OpenBSD is thus statistically more secure than HardenedBSD because you have fewer occasions to use it.

Or, you have to "compromise security" yourself to make the system a bit more useful. For example, I've turned off the default library re-ordering, and the kernel-relinking on every boot; compiled my usual programs (WM, xearth, ...) myself because pledge/unveil and friends make the ones installed from packages fail in mysterious ways.

Of my installed OSes, OpenBSD gets the least use because I feel vaguely guilty each time I make these kinds of changes of convenience to the system.

20-100

In the same vein, I have worked at a company enforcing very stringent password rules. In particular, you had to change your password every month and couldn't reuse any of the last 24 passwords. To comply with these rules, I've ended up using completely predictable passwords built from the year and the month, which was barely better than writing it on a post-it sticked to the monitor...

rvp

20-100 I have worked at a company enforcing very stringent password rules. ... which was barely better than writing it on a post-it sticked to the monitor...

There are secure, workable solutions to this problem:
Write your passwords down
Two factor paper passwords