Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Too close to call: the best configurations, Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) and GPT-5.6 Sol (low), are 21 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Fable 5 is #6 and GPT-5.6 Sol is #8. Cost per script: $3.20 for Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) and $0.113 for GPT-5.6 Sol (low).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 (high)
Pick Claude Fable 5 (high) when voice and video structure matter more to you than the hook, since at $1.34 it scores about three points above both GPT-5.6 Sol settings on YouTube Best Practices.
PickGPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol (low)
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol (low) first, because at $0.113 and a minute a script it's Sol's best-rated setting and the board cannot separate it from either Claude Fable 5 setting.
I can't call this one at the top. Claude Fable 5 is the #6 model of 78 and GPT-5.6 Sol the #8 model, each ranked by its best setting, and those settings are 21 Elo apart. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) sits just above GPT-5.6 Sol (low), with 95% ranges that overlap, so the board cannot separate them. Drop Fable one level and the order flips: Claude Fable 5 (high) sits 62 Elo below Sol at low, again inside overlapping ranges. No two of the four ranges on this page separate. The prices do: Fable at max effort costs $3.20 a script against $0.113, about 28 times as much. More thinking does nothing for Sol, since ultra rates 5 Elo below low for about 3.2 times the cost. The two write differently, though. Fable is one to three points closer to my voice and stronger on YouTube structure. Sol opens better, by five to six points on Hook Strength, and brings more substance. With the totals this close, I'd start on Sol at low. One Fable script at high pays for about twelve Sol drafts.
Disclosure: Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol each come from the same lab as one of the judges (Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Sol). Neither is scored by its own lab alone (how the panel works). The judge analysis measures how much each judge favors its own lab.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | 2239 | 2186 to 2298 | 82.9 | $3.20 | 12.5 min | #12 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | 2218 | 2181 to 2251 | 82.3 | $0.113 | 0.9 min | #16 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | 2213 | 2173 to 2266 | 82.3 | $0.367 | 4.1 min | #18 |
| Claude Fable 5 (high) | 2156 | 2102 to 2204 | 81.9 | $1.34 | 4.9 min | #22 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) at Elo 2239 (range 2186 to 2298) and GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2218 (range 2181 to 2251) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2218 and $0.113 per script leads Claude Fable 5 (high) at Elo 2156 and $1.34 per script by 62 Elo. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at $0.113 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), at $3.20 per script: 2181 to 2251 against 2186 to 2298, so the board cannot separate them. Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) costs about 28 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Claude Fable 5 Configuration Above GPT-5.6 Sol's Best. The cheapest Claude Fable 5 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at Elo 2218 and $0.113 per script, is Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), at Elo 2239 and $3.20 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 28 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Fable 5 moves +83 Elo from high to max effort, at about 2.4 times the cost per script. GPT-5.6 Sol moves -5 Elo from low to ultra, at about 3.2 times the cost per script.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and GPT-5.6 Sol (low) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, YouTube Best Practices does the most to put Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) ahead, with a 4.4-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.96 | 1.27 |
| Lowest script score | 81.2 Script 8 | 79.8 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 86.4 Script 7 | 84.2 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 5.2 | 4.4 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) minus GPT-5.6 Sol (low), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.1 | 82.1 | +1.0 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 83.7 | 82.5 | +1.2 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.6 | 82.3 | -0.7 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 81.6 | 79.8 | +1.8 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.5 | 83.2 | -0.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.9 | 82.8 | +0.1 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 86.4 | 82.0 | +4.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.2 | 82.6 | -1.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.2 | 84.2 | -1.0 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.8 | 82.0 | +0.8 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons