Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
Too close to call: the best configurations, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), are 43 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-Pro UltraSpeed is #17. Cost per script: $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) and $0.177 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (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) as the default, at $0.017 a script with a range that overlaps MiMo's for about a tenth of the price.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) when turnaround matters more than price, since it returns a script in half a minute for $0.177.
This one is cheap against fast, and the writing won't pick for you. With each model ranked by its best setting, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the #14 model of 78 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed the #17 model. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) are 43 Elo apart with overlapping 95% ranges, and the metrics split: DeepSeek lands closer to the requested length by more than six points, MiMo writes better visual cues by about three. On price it's DeepSeek. It costs $0.017 a script at max, about a tenth of MiMo's $0.177, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) at $0.012 still overlaps MiMo's range. On speed it's MiMo: a script in half a minute, where DeepSeek at max takes almost five times as long. DeepSeek at low gets close to that pace, but its range falls clear below MiMo's, so you'd be giving up quality for it. Thinking off is worse again, 402 Elo under max to save about a cent. My default is DeepSeek at max, with steadier drafts as a bonus. MiMo is for when I need the draft right now.
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-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 (max) | 2040 | 1999 to 2076 | 81.0 | $0.017 | 2.4 min | 22,010 | #28 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | 1997 | 1954 to 2037 | 80.6 | $0.177 | 0.5 min | 10,745 | #34 |
| 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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) at Elo 1997 (range 1954 to 2037) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high), at $0.012 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), at $0.017 per script: 1925 to 2010 against 1999 to 2076, so the board cannot separate them. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) costs about 1.4 times as much per script.
- Cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Configuration Above MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), at Elo 1997 and $0.177 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 less than the configuration it beats.
- 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 three of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) on five, with one tie. 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 6.5-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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.30 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 79.7 Script 10 | 78.5 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 82.4 Script 7 | 82.3 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 2.7 | 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 (max) minus MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.8 | 79.0 | +1.8 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.2 | 80.6 | +0.6 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.2 | 80.9 | +0.3 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 78.5 | +1.6 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 81.1 | 81.2 | -0.1 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 80.8 | 81.2 | -0.4 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.4 | 82.3 | +0.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.7 | 81.3 | -0.6 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 82.2 | 82.3 | -0.1 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 79.7 | 78.8 | +0.9 |
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