Model Comparison
GLM-5.3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
GLM-5.3 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 223 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 146 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GLM-5.3 is #7 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed is #17. Cost per script: $0.240 for GLM-5.3 (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
PickGLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 (max)
Pick GLM-5.3 (max) for the final script, where its stronger hooks and structure are worth $0.240 and six minutes.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) when you want to iterate on an outline quickly, with a draft back in half a minute for $0.177.
The case for MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed over GLM-5.3 is speed, and it's a fair one. MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) returns a script in half a minute, about 12 times faster than GLM-5.3 (max) at 6.1 minutes, and costs a bit less, $0.177 against $0.240. The writing goes the other way. GLM-5.3 is the #7 model of 78 at 2220 Elo and MiMo the #17 model at 1997, each ranked by its best setting, and their 95% ranges sit well apart, so the board backs that order. Both have a single setting on the board, so that's the whole comparison. Most of GLM's lead is structure: close to five points on Length Adherence and about three on YouTube Best Practices and Hook Strength. Substance and craft are within a point, and MiMo even has the slightly better Slop Score. GLM also burns about four times the reasoning tokens to get there. For a script I'll film, I'd wait the six minutes for GLM. While I'm still shaping an outline and want quick passes, MiMo's speed earns its place.
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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLM-5.3 (max) | 2220 | 2183 to 2259 | 82.4 | $0.240 | 6.1 min | 46,444 | #15 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | 1997 | 1954 to 2037 | 80.6 | $0.177 | 0.5 min | 10,745 | #34 |
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. GLM-5.3 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 223 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2183 to 2259 against 1954 to 2037), which is strong evidence for that order.
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) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put GLM-5.3 (max) ahead, with a 4.9-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GLM-5.3 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.39 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 80.5 Script 10 | 78.5 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 84.1 Script 7 | 82.3 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.6 | 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 GLM-5.3 (max) minus MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GLM-5.3 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 82.1 | 79.0 | +3.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 80.6 | +1.9 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.5 | 80.9 | +0.6 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 81.0 | 78.5 | +2.5 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.5 | 81.2 | +1.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.9 | 81.2 | +1.7 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 84.1 | 82.3 | +1.8 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.7 | 81.3 | +1.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.0 | 82.3 | +1.7 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.5 | 78.8 | +1.7 |
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