Welcome! First, our apologies for the lack of response...new posters are delayed in moderation for the first few posts, and then sometimes the posts just get lost in the flood.
Some context on scores: this kind of cognitive assessment typically isn't considered stable for a few more years yet, until about age eight or so, with even more variability among learners with exceptionalities, or other factors affecting testability. Testing in childhood has some utility, but it's probably better to consider it a measure of state (temporally-local conditions), rather than trait (stable, within-person qualities). A few of the reasons for this include 1) the wide range of expected development in early childhood; 2) variable attention, motivation, and experience (both with academic/pre-academic and testing skills) in young children, 3) even more vulnerability to conditions in young children than in older learners (e.g., fatigue, hunger, anxiety, level of rapport).
So I'd generally be hesitant to raise red flags based purely on preschool IQ testing, in the absence of any IRL concerns.
Now on to the scores. Your second child has scores beginning solidly in the Average range, and extending into the Extremely High range. It would appear that his strengths are in abstract reasoning (both verbal and nonverbal) and working memory, and his lowest areas (not technically a weakness, as these are very comfortably Average scores, but low compared to his strengths) are in visual spatial skills and fine-motor speed. These strength areas are often associated with math strengths, especially in combination with each other. It's not particularly unusual for a high cognitive preschooler to post less dramatic scores in motor-involved areas, as having advanced thinking skills doesn't necessarily correspond to equally advanced hand skills.
Given your description of your older child's IRL profile, I would take those scores only lightly into consideration, as test anxiety may well have played a major role in her performance. Consequently, I'm a bit reluctant to invest too much into interpreting the scores.
Bottom line, they are both very young, and there are many and various reasons to believe that the relative weaknesses (only one of which actually falls below the Average range) are not yet cause for concern, certainly not in isolation. Until you see IRL problems, the lower scores don't have IRL meaning. I'm not ruling out any kind of learning difference, of course, but in your place, I would definitely take the approach of watching for actual concerns, and starting from that end of things, rather than worrying about an hypothetical concern. (aka, "don't borrow trouble!")
