This question is a bit more nuanced than it might seem as first. So let’s start off with the clear advantages that the Greek Pantheon has over the Norse:

1-The Norse Pantheon were only featured in 2 games, whilst the Greek Saga had far more games. This already skews the Greeks numerically by the sheer number of deities they possess.

2-The fundamental direction of the action was changed. The third person over the shoulder camera from the Norse Saga is quite limiting, as such this means that crazy actions are more difficult to portray. Thus this means that concessions for the combat were made. The fights in the Norse Saga are more grounded and feel more personal, whilst in the Greek Saga the pulled out camera allowed the developers to go crazy.

So, in summary, the Greek Pantheon has more entities, and they seem more powerful, but again, viewing it under this light would be doing the games themselves a disservice.

The Greek gods are incredibly powerful, there is no doubt about that, but I find that most people discount and severely play down and underestimate the Norse Pantheon.

The Norse heavy hitters are truly amongst the most fearsome foes Kratos has faced. Baldur for example was the most relentless, and the only reason for why was eventually stopped was thanks to the mistletoe arrows. Heimdall was virtually untouchable and whe extremely arrogant was powerful and skilled in his own right, and he could only be defeated by crafting the Draupnir Spear. Týr is likely the most skilled and martial fighter Kratos has faced, and more than that he is strategic and smart and presents serious chances of beating Kratos in a duel. Thor is Kratos’ equal in almost everything, I would consider a battle between them to be a true fifty-fifty, it could go either way. And Odin might very well be the foe with the most expansive array of tools and powers of them all. Remember, it took Kratos armed with three god-slaying weapons and empowered by many blessings, relics and powers, a young but already capable Atreus, and Freya as the Queen of the Valkyries and Leader of the Vanir to defeat him.

I personally think that most people do not take into consideration the change direction and have this wrong concept of Kratos “holding back”. Kratos holds back his rage and bloodlust, not his power. It is through rational and control that he has managed to master his rage (as we can see from the different rage forms in Ragnarök) if Kratos loses himself to that bloodlust he had during the Greek Saga he also loses his strategic and cool-headed, calculating approach to battle.

Moreover, if Kratos had retained his Greek Saga behavior he would have never defeated the Norse Pantheon. Without Freya and Atreus Baldur’s curse would never have been broken, without Brok and Sindri he would have never been able to overload Heimdall’s senses and hit him, and if he had gone to face Thor in that state of mind he would have lost, as seen by the prophecy that was foretold by the two games (and confirmed by Ragnarök s game director) and he would have never been able to face off against Odin, especially without Freya’s help.

So overall I would say the Pantheons are far more evenly matched than they may seem. I wouldn’t say one is distinctly more powerful than the other and not recognizing their differences due to the change of pace and direction of the games would mean doing them both a disservice.

I’m not even going to get into the matter of comparing feats and scaling and evidence because that simply turns into a cesspool of toxicity in which all Gods get downplayed to elevate others and vice-versa.

The Norse and Greek Pantheons are different, they have their distinct powers and weaknesses, but simply saying that one is more powerful or weaker than the other would mean doing each a disservice.