Model Comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) by 87 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 2 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #14 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro is #20. Cost per script: $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) and $0.017 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) for fast drafts in about a minute, since the board can't separate it from the max setting and it costs $0.012 a script.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) for its stronger visual cues, at the same $0.017 a script as DeepSeek's best.
Both best settings cost $0.017 a script, so price drops out and everything else has to decide. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash ranks six places higher, the #14 model of 78 against the #20 model, each placed by its best setting. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is 87 Elo ahead of MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), and their 95% ranges sit 2 Elo apart, which is strong evidence for that order with very little room to spare. Most of the rest goes DeepSeek's way. It finishes in 2.4 minutes against 6.2, its drafts are steadier, and it scores five points higher on length. MiMo's clear win is visual cues, a bit over two points. DeepSeek's weights are also open, and MiMo's aren't. I'd look hard at DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high). It rates 18 Elo above MiMo with overlapping ranges, at $0.012 and about a minute, and the board can't separate it from the max setting either. Just don't go lower. At low, DeepSeek falls 97 Elo behind MiMo, with ranges that barely overlap, and with thinking off its drafts swing more than any other setting here. Between these two I'd pick DeepSeek, at high.
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, 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 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) | 1971 | 1925 to 2010 | 80.3 | $0.012 | 1.1 min | 13,809 | #38 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | 1953 | 1905 to 1997 | 80.2 | $0.017 | 6.2 min | 10,176 | #39 |
| 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) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) by 87 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (1999 to 2076 against 1905 to 1997), which is strong evidence for that order.
- 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's Best. The cheapest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), at Elo 1953 and $0.017 per script, is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high), at Elo 1971 and $0.012 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 seven of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (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 (max) ahead, with a 5.0-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 (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.30 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 79.7 Script 10 | 78.0 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 82.4 Script 7 | 82.5 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 2.7 | 4.5 |
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 (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.8 | 79.3 | +1.5 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.2 | 79.9 | +1.3 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.2 | 79.7 | +1.5 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 78.0 | +2.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 81.1 | 81.5 | -0.4 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 80.8 | 81.1 | -0.3 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.4 | 80.3 | +2.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.7 | 80.7 | 0.0 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 82.2 | 82.5 | -0.3 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 79.7 | 79.4 | +0.3 |
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