Which one you think is better for fundamentals, HOC or PNLH ? (After reading GSIH and ToP + playing for some time).
Small stakes(0.25/0.5-0.5/1), full-ring, NLHE(multi tabling).
HOC or PNLH, Which one will be a better choise ?

HOCG

Definitely Harrington, he covers all the basics very well, and some very non-basic oncepts as well. PNLH is unbalanced, and half of the book is spent on the SPR concept. The concept itself is useful, but any strategy depending on it was "it depends" spelled out over 100+ pages.

You cannot go wrong with Harrington's if you are looking for fundamentals and then some.

HoC has flawed advice and concepts on many issues, although it does give some insight on some issues and at least encourages thinking. PNL is much more solid, but puts too much emphasis on planning and less on accurately narrowing or redefining ranges on later street (being mostly about preflop).

Yes, HoC has some flaws (eg. his wristwatch for randomization), but it's still worth reading when starting out, in my opinion.

that wristwatch business drove me crazy while trying to read through it. I wish he would've laid out the "80% of the time" plans all at once, then dedicate a small section in the back of the book to mixing up your play and offer up his wonky wristwatch idea. Seeing all the percentages for plays broke up the train of thought to an unacceptable degree, imo.

...As far as OP's question, HOC is more about how to play, its focused on whats on your cards. PNLH is more about how to think and is more focused on concepts to apply as you make decisions. So it depends on what you're looking for. If you've read GSIH & TOP, next logical step is No Limit Hold'em Theory and Practice, imo.

HOC imo