score:2
Adobe forts are more defensible. Perhaps the most famous one was the Alamo. During the war for Texas independence, it was defended by less than 200 Texans for nearly two weeks against odds of 10-15 to one.
A palisade fort was mainly a stopgap against relatively small bands of soldiers. It was vulnerable to artillery and even fire. One such fort was Fort Washington during the American Revolution, which was captured at odds of 8 to 3 in less than a day. After taking heavy casualties in the approach over rough ground, the British breached the walls on two sides, "overrunning" the American positions.
Upvote:-1
This is a history what if question. Likewise I can counter that reinforced concrete with +15 cm artillery and machine guns trumps both adobe and palisade fortresses.
One builds a fortress with what is on hand. In dryer areas that can be adobe, in more wooded areas probably palisades. One isn't necessarily better than the other. They are what is available. Not only that, it's the men defending that do the job. not to mention their commander. The fortress is there to assist them.