Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Too close to call: the best configurations, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), are 33 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13 and GPT-5.6 Terra is #14. Cost per script: $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and $0.275 for GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra).
Last updated , from board data generated at 16:59 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) as the everyday writer, since the board can't separate it from Terra's best and Terra costs about 20 times as much.
PickGPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra (medium)
Pick GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) when the facts matter most, since its 84.6 on Substance, Accuracy & Value beats both DeepSeek configurations for $0.062 a script.
The board can't separate these two, and one of them costs about 20 times as much. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the #13 model of 81 and GPT-5.6 Terra the #14 model, each ranked by its best configuration. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) sits 33 Elo above GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) with overlapping 95% ranges, at $0.014 a script against $0.275, and 1.3 minutes against 8.0. One level down it's the same story: DeepSeek at high and Terra at medium are 71 Elo apart, ranges overlapping, for $0.0095 against $0.062. Terra's thinking costs more for what it buys. Medium to ultra adds 75 Elo at 4.4 times the price and those ranges still overlap, while DeepSeek's step from high to max adds 37 for half a cent. The two do write differently. Terra carries more substance, 4.1 points up at the top, and better visual cues, 5.0 up, with the steadiest drafts on this page. DeepSeek reads better, with tone and craft each more than two points ahead. For fact-heavy explainers I'd consider Terra at medium. For everything else it's DeepSeek at max.
Disclosure: GPT-5.6 Terra comes from the same lab as one of the four judges, GPT-6.1 Sol. 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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.6 Terra, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | 2087 | 2039 to 2140 | 81.6 | $0.014 | 1.3 min | 16,960 | #24 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | 2054 | 2014 to 2098 | 81.4 | $0.275 | 8.0 min | N/A | #26 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) | 2050 | 2001 to 2092 | 81.1 | $0.0095 | 0.9 min | 9,728 | #27 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) | 1979 | 1945 to 2016 | 80.7 | $0.062 | 1.4 min | N/A | #37 |
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. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) at Elo 2087 (range 2039 to 2140) and GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) at Elo 2054 (range 2014 to 2098) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) at Elo 2050 and $0.0095 per script leads GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) at Elo 1979 and $0.062 per script by 71 Elo. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high), at $0.0095 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), at $0.014 per script: 2001 to 2092 against 2039 to 2140, so the board cannot separate them. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) costs about 1.5 times as much per script.
- Cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 Configuration Above GPT-5.6 Terra's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), at Elo 2054 and $0.275 per script, is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), at Elo 2087 and $0.014 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs less than the configuration it beats.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 moves +37 Elo from high to max, at about 1.5 times the cost per script. GPT-5.6 Terra moves +75 Elo from medium to ultra, at about 4.4 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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) ahead, with a 2.3-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.58 | 1.38 |
| Lowest script score | 79.9 Script 4 | 79.8 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 7 | 83.0 Script 6 |
| Range across scripts | 3.1 | 3.2 |
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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) minus GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.5 | 81.1 | -0.6 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.8 | 82.1 | -1.3 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.5 | 82.5 | -2.0 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.9 | 79.8 | +0.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.9 | 82.2 | +0.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.2 | 83.0 | -1.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.0 | 80.6 | +2.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 80.3 | +2.3 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.0 | 81.8 | +1.2 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.6 | 80.6 | +1.0 |
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