Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder
Too close to call: the best configurations, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Wonder (max), are 90 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 16:59 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
Ranks in the picks and verdict are configuration ranks: each setting's place among all 134 configurations. The cards above give each model's rank.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) as the default, since the board can't separate it from Muse Wonder's best and it costs $0.014 a script.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) when the substance of a script matters most, since it scores 86.8 there against 82.3 for DeepSeek at max, at $0.309 a script.
The board can't separate the two best configurations, and one costs about 22 times as much as the other. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Wonder (max) sit 90 Elo apart with overlapping 95% ranges, #24 and #32 on the board, which makes DeepSeek the #13 model of 81 and Muse Wonder the #16 model. DeepSeek charges $0.014 a script and finishes in 1.3 minutes, where Muse charges $0.309 and takes 2.0. Muse brings 4.5 more points of substance and better visual cues. DeepSeek lands the length far better, 94.8 against 82.5, writes cleaner sentences and sounds more like me, and it wins six of the ten scripts with the steadiest drafts on this page. The thinking ladders settle it for me. Muse falls 352 Elo from max to high with separate ranges, and its length score drops by about half, with adaptive lower still. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high), at under a cent, still overlaps Muse's best, and at the shared high level it leads by 405 Elo. Add open weights on DeepSeek's side and it's my default.
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 Muse Wonder, 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 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 1997 | 1956 to 2041 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #32 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1645 | 1583 to 1712 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #61 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1590 | 1531 to 1636 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #71 |
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) at Elo 2087 (range 2039 to 2140) and Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 1997 (range 1956 to 2041) 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 Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1645 and $0.149 per script by 405 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at high. 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 Muse Wonder's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 1997 and $0.309 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. Muse Wonder moves +352 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | Muse Wonder | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 2050 | 1645 | +405 | Separate |
| max | 2087 | 1997 | +90 | Overlap |
Gap is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 minus Muse Wonder 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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and Muse Wonder (max) on four. 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 12.3-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) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.58 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 79.9 Script 4 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 7 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 3.1 | 4.0 |
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 Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.5 | 81.3 | -0.8 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.8 | 81.7 | -0.9 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.5 | 81.3 | -0.8 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.9 | 79.5 | +0.4 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.9 | 82.2 | +0.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.2 | 81.3 | -0.1 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.0 | 78.5 | +4.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 82.1 | +0.5 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.0 | 79.9 | +3.1 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.6 | 78.2 | +3.4 |
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