Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Model Comparison

GLM-5.3 Flash vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

GLM-5.3 Flash (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 100 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 17 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GLM-5.3 Flash is #12 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #14. Cost per script: $0.022 for GLM-5.3 Flash (max) and $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max).

Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.

GLM-5.3 Flash
2140 Writing Elo of GLM-5.3 Flash (max), its best configuration#12 of 78 models · 81.8/100 Writing Score · $0.022 per script1 configuration on the board
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
2040 Writing Elo of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), its best configuration#14 of 78 models · 81.0/100 Writing Score · $0.017 per script4 configurations on the board

Picks and Verdict

PickGLM-5.3 Flash

GLM-5.3 Flash (max)

Pick GLM-5.3 Flash (max) as the default, for stronger hooks and a 100 Elo lead at $0.022 a script.

PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high)

Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) when you want the draft in about a minute, since the board cannot separate it from max and it costs $0.012 a script.

Price is off the table here. GLM-5.3 Flash (max) costs $0.022 a script and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) costs $0.017, so I'm choosing on the writing and on the clock. The writing goes to GLM, the #12 model of 78 against the #14 model, each ranked by its best setting. Those two settings are 100 Elo apart, and separate 95% ranges are strong evidence for that order. The widest gaps are hooks and visual cues, two to three points each. On voice the two are level, and DeepSeek's drafts are a bit steadier. The clock goes the other way: GLM takes a little over five minutes and DeepSeek under half that. GLM-5.3 Flash has one setting on the board and DeepSeek has four, and that ladder tells me where to stop. The board cannot separate DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) from max, and high finishes in about a minute. Below high the Elo drops fast, down to 402 under max with thinking off. I'd default to GLM and wait the five minutes.

Disclosure: GLM-5.3 Flash comes from the same lab as one of the four judges, GLM 5.3 Flash. The other three sit outside its lab, so it is never scored by its own lab alone (how the panel works). The judge analysis measures how much each judge favors its own lab.

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 GLM-5.3 Flash and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.

How to Read the Chart
  • 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).
GLM-5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ConfigurationWriting Elo95% RangeWriting ScoreCost / ScriptTime / ScriptReasoning TokensConfiguration Rank
GLM-5.3 Flash (max)21402093 to 218681.8$0.0225.2 min37,224#23
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)20401999 to 207681.0$0.0172.4 min22,010#28
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high)19711925 to 201080.3$0.0121.1 min13,809#38
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (low)18561815 to 190679.3$0.00770.7 min6,740#46
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking)16381588 to 168076.8$0.00370.3 min0#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.

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

GLM-5.3 Flash (max)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)Solid bar: higher score in that row

GLM-5.3 Flash (max) scores higher on seven of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) on two. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Hook Strength does the most to put GLM-5.3 Flash (max) ahead, with a 2.7-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.

Tone & Voice Match19% weight
78.0
78.1
Writing Craft & Clarity13% weight
78.3
78.0
Substance, Accuracy & Value15% weight
82.8
82.5
Continuity & Emotion14% weight
81.3
80.1
YouTube Best Practices12% weight
80.9
79.8
Hook Strength10% weight
82.8
80.1
Length Adherence8% weight
97.1
95.9
Slop Score5% weight
83.1
83.2
Visual Cue Quality4% weight
78.0
76.0

Consistency Across Drafts

GLM-5.3 Flash (max)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)
Score spread across drafts (±)1.621.30
Lowest script score80.3 Script 479.7 Script 10
Highest script score83.8 Script 982.4 Script 7
Range across scripts3.52.7

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 GLM-5.3 Flash (max) minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), and the higher score is in bold.

ScriptGLM-5.3 Flash (max)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)Gap
Script 1 opinion / warning explainer81.180.8+0.3
Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer81.581.2+0.3
Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion81.081.2-0.2
Script 4 short explainer80.380.1+0.2
Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer82.181.1+1.0
Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story82.980.8+2.1
Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study83.582.4+1.1
Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation80.880.7+0.1
Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis83.882.2+1.6
Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation81.279.7+1.5

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