Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 101 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 13 Elo apart. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed is #19. Cost per script: $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and $0.177 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (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) as the default, ahead of MiMo with separate ranges at $0.014 a script.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) when turnaround decides it, since it returns a script in half a minute for $0.177.
This is cheap against fast, and the writing leans toward cheap. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 101 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 13 Elo apart, which is strong evidence for that order. That's the #13 model of 81 against the #19 model, each ranked by its best configuration. The margin is thin, though. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) sits 64 Elo above MiMo with overlapping ranges, so one thinking level down, the board can't separate them. Price goes clearly to DeepSeek: $0.014 a script at max against $0.177, so MiMo costs about 13 times as much. Speed goes to MiMo, half a minute a script against 1.3 minutes, though DeepSeek at high gets under a minute. On the metrics, DeepSeek lands 5.4 points closer on length and writes slightly cleaner sentences, while MiMo leads visual cues by 4.0 and edges substance. DeepSeek's drafts are also the steadier ones. I'd run DeepSeek at max for nearly everything and keep MiMo for the day I need a draft in thirty seconds and don't mind paying for it.
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-Pro UltraSpeed, 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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | 1986 | 1947 to 2026 | 80.6 | $0.177 | 0.5 min | 10,745 | #35 |
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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 101 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2039 to 2140 against 1947 to 2026), 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-Pro UltraSpeed's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), at Elo 1986 and $0.177 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 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.
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 seven of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) on two. 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 5.4-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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.58 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 79.9 Script 4 | 78.5 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 7 | 82.3 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.1 | 3.8 |
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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.5 | 79.0 | +1.5 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.8 | 80.6 | +0.2 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.5 | 80.9 | -0.4 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.9 | 78.5 | +1.4 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.9 | 81.2 | +1.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.2 | 81.2 | 0.0 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.0 | 82.3 | +0.7 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 81.3 | +1.3 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.0 | 82.3 | +0.7 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.6 | 78.8 | +2.8 |
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