Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Too close to call: the best configurations, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), are 53 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #14 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is #18. Cost per script: $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) and $0.0057 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) for everyday scripts, at $0.017 and 2.4 minutes each with the steadiest drafts on this page.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) when the hook matters most, since it scores 82.7 on Hook Strength for $0.0057 a script.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) costs a third of what DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) does, and the board can't separate the two. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the #14 model of 78 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash the #18 model, each ranked by its best setting, and those settings sit 53 Elo apart with overlapping 95% ranges, at $0.017 a script against $0.0057. Both are under two cents, so the money barely matters to me. DeepSeek is quicker, 2.4 minutes against 3.5, and its drafts are steadier. They fall short in different places. DeepSeek lands much closer to the requested length, about eight points ahead, while MiMo writes the better hook and visual cues by about three points each. I'd be careful with the lower DeepSeek settings. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (low) costs more than MiMo and sits 131 Elo below it with separate ranges. No thinking is the only DeepSeek setting cheaper than MiMo, and it falls 349 Elo behind. So DeepSeek only competes here at high or max. I'd run DeepSeek at max by default and switch to MiMo when the opening is what a script needs most.
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 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 (max) | 2040 | 1999 to 2076 | 81.0 | $0.017 | 2.4 min | 22,010 | #28 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | 1987 | 1929 to 2034 | 80.4 | $0.0057 | 3.5 min | 11,025 | #35 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) | 1971 | 1925 to 2010 | 80.3 | $0.012 | 1.1 min | 13,809 | #38 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (low) | 1856 | 1815 to 1906 | 79.3 | $0.0077 | 0.7 min | 6,740 | #46 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) | 1638 | 1588 to 1680 | 76.8 | $0.0037 | 0.3 min | 0 | #61 |
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 (max) at Elo 2040 (range 1999 to 2076) and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) at Elo 1987 (range 1929 to 2034) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), at $0.0057 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), at $0.017 per script: 1929 to 2034 against 1999 to 2076, so the board cannot separate them. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) costs about 3 times as much per script.
- Cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Configuration Above MiMo-V2.6-Flash's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), at Elo 1987 and $0.0057 per script, is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), at Elo 2040 and $0.017 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 3 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash moves +402 Elo from no thinking to max, at about 4.6 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 (max) scores higher on four of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) on five. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) ahead, with a 8.3-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.30 | 1.86 |
| Lowest script score | 79.7 Script 10 | 78.9 Script 1 |
| Highest script score | 82.4 Script 7 | 81.9 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 2.7 | 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 (max) minus MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.8 | 78.9 | +1.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.2 | 80.3 | +0.9 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.2 | 79.4 | +1.8 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 79.4 | +0.7 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 81.1 | 81.9 | -0.8 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 80.8 | 81.4 | -0.6 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.4 | 79.9 | +2.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.7 | 81.4 | -0.7 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 82.2 | 81.9 | +0.3 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 79.7 | 79.7 | 0.0 |
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