Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Grok 4.7
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) leads Grok 4.7 (medium) by 173 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 71 Elo apart. Even DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017's lowest-rated configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high), ranks above Grok 4.7 (medium). Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13 and Grok 4.7 is #24. Cost per script: $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and $0.215 for Grok 4.7 (medium).
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) for the strongest writing on this page, 173 Elo above Grok's best at $0.014 a script and 1.3 minutes.
PickGrok 4.7
Grok 4.7 (medium)
Pick Grok 4.7 (medium) when facts and visual cues matter more than polish, since it scores 86.2 on Substance, Accuracy & Value against 82.3 for DeepSeek at max.
Grok 4.7 brings the facts, but DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 writes the script I'd actually read out. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) leads Grok 4.7 (medium), Grok's best configuration, by 173 Elo with 95% ranges 71 Elo apart, which is strong evidence for that order. That's the #13 model of 81 against the #24 model, each ranked by its best configuration, and both DeepSeek configurations rank above all three Grok ones. The bill points the same way: $0.014 a script against $0.215, so Grok costs about 15 times as much, and it takes 6.2 minutes to DeepSeek's 1.3. Grok falls behind on craft, 7.6 points down, and on length, 16.1 down, and its drafts swing almost twice as much as DeepSeek's. To be fair, it leads on substance, 86.2 against 82.3, and on visual cues by 3.5. Medium is where I'd stop with Grok: high costs $0.305, takes 9.6 minutes and lands 29 Elo lower, inside overlapping ranges. DeepSeek's step from high to max adds 37 Elo inside overlapping ranges for about half a cent, and max lands six points closer to the target length, so I'd leave it on max. Easy call for me.
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 Grok 4.7, 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 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) | 2050 | 2001 to 2092 | 81.1 | $0.0095 | 0.9 min | 9,728 | #27 |
| Grok 4.7 (medium) | 1914 | 1865 to 1968 | 79.6 | $0.215 | 6.2 min | 27,687 | #45 |
| Grok 4.7 (high) | 1885 | 1835 to 1926 | 79.6 | $0.305 | 9.6 min | 42,549 | #46 |
| Grok 4.7 (low) | 1822 | 1772 to 1873 | 79.0 | $0.064 | 1.7 min | 2,760 | #51 |
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. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) leads Grok 4.7 (medium) by 173 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2039 to 2140 against 1865 to 1968), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 Configuration Ranks Higher. Both DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configurations rank above all three Grok 4.7 configurations: the lowest-rated, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) at Elo 2050, still beats Grok 4.7 (medium) at Elo 1914. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- 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 Grok 4.7 (low) at Elo 1822 and $0.064 per script by 228 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At high, the one level name both models use, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the higher Writing Elo: 2050 against 1885. Their 95% ranges do not overlap there. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- 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 Grok 4.7's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Grok 4.7 (medium), at Elo 1914 and $0.215 per script, is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high), at Elo 2050 and $0.0095 per script. 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. Grok 4.7 moves +63 Elo from low to high, at about 4.8 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 six of the nine metrics and Grok 4.7 (medium) on three. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) ahead, with a 16.1-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) | Grok 4.7 (medium) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.58 | 3.00 |
| Lowest script score | 79.9 Script 4 | 75.6 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 7 | 82.2 Script 2 |
| Range across scripts | 3.1 | 6.6 |
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 Grok 4.7 (medium), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | Grok 4.7 (medium) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.5 | 81.5 | -1.0 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.8 | 82.2 | -1.4 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.5 | 81.6 | -1.1 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.9 | 76.9 | +3.0 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.9 | 80.5 | +2.4 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.2 | 82.0 | -0.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.0 | 76.5 | +6.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 79.0 | +3.6 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.0 | 80.2 | +2.8 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.6 | 75.6 | +6.0 |
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