Which is easier to intercept, a ballistic missile or a cruise missile?

Low-tech militaries are relatively easy to intercept cruise missiles, since the probability of intercepting a ballistic missile without an appropriate anti-missile system is 0. Cruise missiles can, at least theoretically, be dealt with by any anti-aircraft weapon, including anti-aircraft guns. But when I say "theoretically" interceptable, I don't mean good enough to intercept: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/tomahawk.html

At least 2 ( and possibly as many as 6) were shot down

Total*** 297 Tomahawks were fired in the entire war, and Tomahawks have little to no means of enhancing survivability. Unlike the ACM and today's JASSM

But nowadays ballistic missile defense technology is advancing so fast that detection is actually not that difficult with the proper early warning system. The interception success rate in the Iraq war was close to 100%, short range ballistic missiles are becoming less and less of a threat. And there are some cases where detection of low flying cruise missiles isn't so good, even with radar flying overhead. Combined with the stealth technology that is now easily integrated, without end-to-end short-range air defense there is likely not even a chance of an attack. And the end of the interception according to the level of air defense system success rate can be up and down a lot worse.