Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Model Comparison

GLM-5.3 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

GLM-5.3 (max) leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) by 270 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 194 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GLM-5.3 is #7 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is #21. Cost per script: $0.240 for GLM-5.3 (max) and $0.077 for DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max).

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

GLM-5.3
2220 Writing Elo of GLM-5.3 (max), its best configuration#7 of 78 models · 82.4/100 Writing Score · $0.240 per script1 configuration on the board
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
1950 Writing Elo of DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max), its best configuration#21 of 78 models · 80.1/100 Writing Score · $0.077 per script2 configurations on the board

Picks and Verdict

PickGLM-5.3

GLM-5.3 (max)

Pick GLM-5.3 (max) for anything you'll publish, since it leads on all nine metrics and finishes in 6.1 minutes for $0.240.

PickDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)

Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) for volume drafting, since $0.077 a script is less than a third of GLM's price with Length Adherence within a point.

Both models here have open weights, so the choice is quality against price, and GLM-5.3 has the quality. GLM-5.3 (max), its only setting on the board, sits at 2220 Elo. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) is 270 Elo behind, and their 95% ranges are separate, which is strong evidence for that order. Ranked by best setting, GLM-5.3 is the #7 model of 78 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 the #21 model. GLM leads on all nine metrics, with the widest gap on tone, 3.4 points, and the narrowest on Length Adherence, under a point. It also finishes sooner, 6.1 minutes against 8.9, even though it spends about half again as many reasoning tokens. DeepSeek's answer is the bill: $0.077 a script against $0.240, a bit less than a third. And that's at max, the setting I'd insist on, because DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high) saves about five cents and gives up 600 Elo. For a script I'm going to publish, I'd pay the difference for GLM. For a pile of drafts where I check length and substance first, DeepSeek at max is close on both.

Disclosure: GLM-5.3 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 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813, 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-5.3DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
ConfigurationWriting Elo95% RangeWriting ScoreCost / ScriptTime / ScriptReasoning TokensConfiguration Rank
GLM-5.3 (max)22202183 to 225982.4$0.2406.1 min46,444#15
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)19501906 to 198980.1$0.0778.9 min31,573#40
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high)13501272 to 142872.3$0.0311.3 min8,879#81

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 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)Solid bar: higher score in that row

GLM-5.3 (max) scores higher on all nine metrics. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put GLM-5.3 (max) ahead, with a 3.4-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.

Tone & Voice Match19% weight
79.7
76.3
Writing Craft & Clarity13% weight
78.7
76.5
Substance, Accuracy & Value15% weight
83.2
81.7
Continuity & Emotion14% weight
82.1
80.2
YouTube Best Practices12% weight
81.7
78.9
Hook Strength10% weight
83.4
80.9
Length Adherence8% weight
94.3
93.4
Slop Score5% weight
83.4
81.4
Visual Cue Quality4% weight
79.7
77.6

Consistency Across Drafts

GLM-5.3 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)
Score spread across drafts (±)1.391.48
Lowest script score80.5 Script 1078.2 Script 10
Highest script score84.1 Script 781.5 Script 6
Range across scripts3.63.3

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 (max) minus DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max), and the higher score is in bold.

ScriptGLM-5.3 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)Gap
Script 1 opinion / warning explainer82.179.5+2.6
Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer82.580.6+1.9
Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion81.580.8+0.7
Script 4 short explainer81.078.5+2.5
Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer82.580.9+1.6
Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story82.981.5+1.4
Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study84.181.1+3.0
Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation82.780.2+2.5
Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis84.079.9+4.1
Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation80.578.2+2.3

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