Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Grok 4.7
GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) leads Grok 4.7 (medium) by 150 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 61 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Terra is #13 and Grok 4.7 is #22. Cost per script: $0.275 for GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) and $0.215 for Grok 4.7 (medium).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra (medium)
Pick GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) for the script at $0.062, since ultra costs more than four times as much for an Elo the board can't separate from it.
PickGrok 4.7
Grok 4.7 (medium)
Pick Grok 4.7 (medium) if you're already on Grok and video structure comes first, since it scores 80.5 on YouTube Best Practices against 79.3 for Terra's best.
The board can call this one at the top, and cost and time settle the rest. By best setting GPT-5.6 Terra is the #13 model of 78 and Grok 4.7 the #22 model, and GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) leads Grok 4.7 (medium) by 150 Elo with separate 95% ranges. GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) costs $0.062 a script and finishes in under two minutes. Grok at medium, the one level name they share, costs $0.215 and takes about six, and it's 74 Elo lower with a range that overlaps Terra's there. Terra at medium even costs less than Grok 4.7 (low). I wouldn't bother with Terra's ultra, which costs more than four times as much for a range that overlaps medium's. Grok's top setting adds even less: high costs more than medium and rates 27 Elo lower, with overlapping ranges. Grok has its wins: the lead on YouTube Best Practices at every setting, and at low the closest tone match of the five. The prose holds it back. At medium it's five to six points behind Terra on craft, and at low the length falls apart. I'd stay with Terra at medium.
Disclosure: GPT-5.6 Terra comes from the same lab as one of the four judges, GPT-6.1 Sol. 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 GPT-5.6 Terra and Grok 4.7, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | 2074 | 2035 to 2113 | 81.4 | $0.275 | 8.0 min | N/A | #25 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) | 1998 | 1952 to 2041 | 80.7 | $0.062 | 1.4 min | N/A | #33 |
| Grok 4.7 (medium) | 1924 | 1863 to 1974 | 79.6 | $0.215 | 6.2 min | 27,687 | #42 |
| Grok 4.7 (high) | 1897 | 1850 to 1939 | 79.6 | $0.305 | 9.6 min | 42,549 | #43 |
| Grok 4.7 (low) | 1834 | 1784 to 1890 | 79.0 | $0.064 | 1.7 min | 2,760 | #48 |
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. N/A under Reasoning Tokens means the board has no separate reasoning count for that route.
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. GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) leads Grok 4.7 (medium) by 150 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2035 to 2113 against 1863 to 1974), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) at Elo 1998 and $0.062 per script leads Grok 4.7 (low) at Elo 1834 and $0.064 per script by 164 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At medium, the one level name both models use, GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher Writing Elo: 1998 against 1924. Their 95% ranges overlap there. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. GPT-5.6 Terra (medium), at $0.062 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), at $0.275 per script: 1952 to 2041 against 2035 to 2113, so the board cannot separate them. GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) costs about 4.4 times as much per script.
- Cheapest GPT-5.6 Terra Configuration Above Grok 4.7's Best. The cheapest GPT-5.6 Terra configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Grok 4.7 (medium), at Elo 1924 and $0.215 per script, is GPT-5.6 Terra (medium), at Elo 1998 and $0.062 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. GPT-5.6 Terra moves +76 Elo from medium to ultra, at about 4.4 times the cost per script. Grok 4.7 moves +63 Elo from low to high, at about 4.8 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
GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) scores higher on seven of the nine metrics and Grok 4.7 (medium) on two. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) ahead, with a 15.0-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | Grok 4.7 (medium) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.38 | 3.00 |
| Lowest script score | 79.8 Script 4 | 75.6 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 6 | 82.2 Script 2 |
| Range across scripts | 3.2 | 6.6 |
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 GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) minus Grok 4.7 (medium), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | Grok 4.7 (medium) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.1 | 81.5 | -0.4 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.1 | 82.2 | -0.1 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.5 | 81.6 | +0.9 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.8 | 76.9 | +2.9 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.2 | 80.5 | +1.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.0 | 82.0 | +1.0 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 80.6 | 76.5 | +4.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.3 | 79.0 | +1.3 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 81.8 | 80.2 | +1.6 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.6 | 75.6 | +5.0 |
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