Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) by 114 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 19 Elo apart. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is #20. Cost per script: $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and $0.0057 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on).
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 everyday drafting, since it clears MiMo with separate ranges at $0.014 a script and 1.3 minutes.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) when the hook matters most or the budget is tightest, at 82.7 on Hook Strength for $0.0057 a script.
Both of these cost under two cents a script, so money isn't really the question. MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) is the cheaper one at $0.0057, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) costs $0.014, about two and a half times as much for a script I'd rather read. DeepSeek leads by 114 Elo with 95% ranges 19 Elo apart, which is strong evidence for that order, and it wins nine of the ten scripts. Ranked by best configuration, that's the #13 model of 81 against the #20 model. DeepSeek is faster too, 1.3 minutes against 3.5, and its drafts vary less. The widest gaps are length, 7.2 points in DeepSeek's favor, and visual cues, 4.2 in MiMo's, and MiMo also writes the stronger hook by 1.6. One level down it gets closer. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high), the level DeepSeek applies when none is set, sits 77 Elo above MiMo at $0.0095 and under a minute, but with overlapping ranges, so the board can't separate those two. Max is the level that pulls clear, for about half a cent more, and that's the one I'd run. MiMo is for when the opening matters most or the budget is tightest.
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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash, 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 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | 1973 | 1910 to 2020 | 80.4 | $0.0057 | 3.5 min | 11,025 | #38 |
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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) by 114 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2039 to 2140 against 1910 to 2020), which is strong evidence for that order.
- 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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), at Elo 1973 and $0.0057 per script, is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high), at Elo 2050 and $0.0095 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 1.7 times as much per script.
- 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.
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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) on two, with one tie. 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 7.2-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) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.58 | 1.86 |
| Lowest script score | 79.9 Script 4 | 78.9 Script 1 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 7 | 81.9 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 3.1 | 3.0 |
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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.5 | 78.9 | +1.6 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.8 | 80.3 | +0.5 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.5 | 79.4 | +1.1 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.9 | 79.4 | +0.5 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.9 | 81.9 | +1.0 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.2 | 81.4 | -0.2 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.0 | 79.9 | +3.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 81.4 | +1.2 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.0 | 81.9 | +1.1 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.6 | 79.7 | +1.9 |
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