I understand people wanting to compare it to Berserk but I don't think the comparison makes any sense at all in this case.
This chapter of Vinland saga might've been brutal but mostly because it is a realistic occurrence and we know that work is based on history (not too accurately but the point stands). We feel terrified because we know that something like this could happen in our reality / did happen in our history.
The characters are supposed to be normal humans like us, which makes it that much more frightening when we have to wonder if we could commit those crimes or what would happen if we were attacked like this.
When Berserk is brutal and terrifying (take the Eclipse as an example) it's almost always accompanied by the strong fantasy level and the author depicts everything artistically as something we don't see in reality (I'm talking about the countless demons, landscapes of hell etc.). There is a lot of exaggeration for the sake of visualization of feelings and in order to demonstrate the abstract horror but there are no blood pinatas or cheap mind numbing shallow tricks to get a rise out of the reader.
It doesn't aim for realistic horror, so if you say it's better than Berserk because it's more brutal in your eyes, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
You CAN compare them, but they don't compete in the same category, so it'd be pointless to judge their overall quality by something like this.
In general, Berserk is not just good because of the brutal and dark elements!
Although part of the fanbase reduces it to that, you would be completely missing the point of Berserk and its story, if you were to dismiss it like that.