Playing rating is higher than tactics rating I noticed for a while that in many chess websites that my tactics rating is between 1700-2000, but my playing rating in rapid is between 2000-2250, in blitz between 1900-2100, and in classical between 2200-2400. I know that there are differences between each website concerning rating. But in all websites my playing rating is higher than my tactics rating by at least 200-300 points in rapid and classical. I have a strong opening preparation that I believe might compensate. During the game, I believe that my opening preparation gives me the advantage because I know the plans, and I know where the weaknesses are in the opponents camp. I also know if I should attack the king, or press a weakness, or play on misplaced piece based on the opening. That's why I think my playing rating is higher. Moreover, I believe that finding tactics in an exercise might be difficult for me because I'm not familiar with some openings/pawn structures. But in pawn structures and openings that I play, I can find the tactic more easily. Now my questions are:

Do you have the same disparity in ratings? And if yes, is there an explanation? (I know that some people have their tactics rating higher than their playing rating, but I'm not talking about this class of players)

Should I practice more tactics? I'm using many websites/apps such as chesstempo, chess24, tactics frenzy, chesscom, and lichess.

I believe that one should practice tactics in the openings that he/she plays because these are the tactics that come often in games. What do you think?
Most sites are way overgenerous with their ratings.
And they are all inconsistent between them too.
One factor that matters is the strength of the group who are competing.  Your tactics cohort may differ a lot from your online opponents.