Model Comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) by 693 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 566 Elo apart. Even Claude Opus 5.5's lowest-rated configuration, Claude Opus 5.5 (low), ranks above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max). Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Opus 5.5 is #1 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13. Cost per script: $1.00 for Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) and $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 16:59 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) for the script you'll publish, since $1.00 buys the top Writing Elo on the board and a lead on all nine metrics.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) for cheap first drafts at $0.014 a script, landing closer to the target length than Opus at high.
Nothing on the DeepSeek side reaches Claude Opus 5.5, the #1 model of 81. Every Opus configuration ranks above both DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configurations: Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) by 693 Elo, and even Claude Opus 5.5 (low) sits 388 above it, with 95% ranges that don't touch. DeepSeek, the #13 model, answers with the bill: Opus at low costs about 17 times as much, and xhigh is $1.00 a script against $0.014. Opus at xhigh leads all nine metrics, by 9.6 points on Visual Cue Quality and 6.1 on substance. DeepSeek at max still lands closer to the target length than Opus at low, medium or high, and its drafts vary less than any of those three. The thinking ladders tell me where to stop. Opus climbs 304 Elo from low to max effort, but xhigh and max effort sit 1 Elo apart, so the $2.58 and 17.5 minutes of max effort buy no extra Elo. DeepSeek gains 37 Elo from high to max inside overlapping ranges, and I'd still pay the extra half a cent. For a script I publish, it's Opus at xhigh. Throwaway first drafts go to DeepSeek at max.
Disclosure: Claude Opus 5.5 comes from the same lab as one of the four judges, Claude Opus 5.5. The other three sit outside its lab, so it is never 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 Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, 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 | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | 2780 | 2706 to 2843 | 85.8 | $1.00 | 6.7 min | N/A | #1 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) | 2779 | 2710 to 2841 | 85.9 | $2.58 | 17.5 min | N/A | #2 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (high) | 2518 | 2470 to 2560 | 84.6 | $0.328 | 2.1 min | N/A | #5 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (medium) | 2499 | 2446 to 2554 | 84.5 | $0.310 | 1.9 min | N/A | #6 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 (low) | 2475 | 2421 to 2518 | 84.3 | $0.243 | 1.5 min | N/A | #7 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | 2087 | 2039 to 2140 | 81.6 | $0.014 | 1.3 min | 16,960 | #24 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) | 2050 | 2001 to 2092 | 81.1 | $0.0095 | 0.9 min | 9,728 | #27 |
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. N/A under Reasoning Tokens means the board has no separate reasoning count for that route.
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 Opus 5.5 (xhigh) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) by 693 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2706 to 2843 against 2039 to 2140), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every Claude Opus 5.5 Configuration Ranks Higher. All five Claude Opus 5.5 configurations rank above both DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configurations: the lowest-rated, Claude Opus 5.5 (low) at Elo 2475, still beats DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) at Elo 2087. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Claude Opus 5.5 (low) at Elo 2475 and $0.243 per script leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) at Elo 2050 and $0.0095 per script by 425 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Claude Opus 5.5 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at any of them. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Claude Opus 5.5 Configuration Above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017's Best. The cheapest Claude Opus 5.5 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), at Elo 2087 and $0.014 per script, is Claude Opus 5.5 (low), at Elo 2475 and $0.243 per script. It costs about 17 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Opus 5.5 moves +304 Elo from low to max effort, at about 11 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 moves +37 Elo from high to max, at about 1.5 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Claude Opus 5.5 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 2518 | 2050 | +468 | Separate |
| max | 2779 | 2087 | +692 | Separate |
Gap is Claude Opus 5.5 minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 at the same level name, using each model's highest-rated configuration at that level.
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 Opus 5.5 (xhigh) scores higher on all nine metrics. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) ahead, with a 6.1-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.43 | 1.58 |
| Lowest script score | 84.3 Script 10 | 79.9 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 87.9 Script 7 | 83.0 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.6 | 3.1 |
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 Opus 5.5 (xhigh) minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 84.4 | 80.5 | +3.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 85.6 | 80.8 | +4.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 85.7 | 80.5 | +5.2 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 86.2 | 79.9 | +6.3 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 85.1 | 82.9 | +2.2 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 85.6 | 81.2 | +4.4 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 87.9 | 83.0 | +4.9 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 85.8 | 82.6 | +3.2 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 87.9 | 83.0 | +4.9 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 84.3 | 81.6 | +2.7 |
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