Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Wonder
Too close to call: the best configurations, GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) and Muse Wonder (max), are 63 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Terra is #13 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $0.275 for GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra (medium)
Pick GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) for most scripts, at $0.062 and 1.4 minutes, since the board can't separate it from Muse's best.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) if continuity is what you check first, since its 81.5 on Continuity & Emotion tops both Terra settings and the board can't separate it from either.
This one is too close to call at the top. GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) sits 63 Elo above Muse Wonder (max), and their 95% ranges overlap, so the board can't order them: the #13 model of 80 against the #16 model. GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) overlaps Muse's max too, at $0.062 a script and 1.4 minutes, about a fifth of Muse's $0.309. Its range only just misses ultra's. Below max, Muse falls away. Muse Wonder (high) lands 322 Elo under Terra at medium with separate ranges, at more than twice the price, and adaptive, where the model picks its own level, sits lower still. Most of that drop is Length Adherence, 41.1 at high and 37.4 at adaptive against 82.5 at max, while its other scores move a few points. Muse at max does finish in 2.0 minutes where Terra's ultra takes 8.0, for about three cents more, but Terra's medium is quicker than both. Ultra lands the length about 11 points better than Muse's max, and Muse's 81.5 on continuity is the best on this page. Terra at medium has the best Tone & Voice Match here, 78.6. I'd run Terra at medium, save ultra for the script I record, and skip Muse's max.
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 Muse Wonder, 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) | 2068 | 2030 to 2106 | 81.4 | $0.275 | 8.0 min | N/A | #25 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) | 1986 | 1948 to 2027 | 80.7 | $0.062 | 1.4 min | N/A | #35 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1664 | 1600 to 1724 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #58 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1604 | 1550 to 1661 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #70 |
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) at Elo 2068 (range 2030 to 2106) and Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 2005 (range 1959 to 2044) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Terra (medium) at Elo 1986 and $0.062 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script by 322 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Cheapest GPT-5.6 Terra Configuration Above Muse Wonder's Best. The cheapest GPT-5.6 Terra configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script, is GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra), at Elo 2068 and $0.275 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 +82 Elo from medium to ultra, at about 4.4 times the cost per script. Muse Wonder moves +341 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 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 five of the nine metrics and Muse Wonder (max) on three, with one tie. 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 11.2-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) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.38 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 79.8 Script 4 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.0 Script 6 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 3.2 | 4.0 |
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 Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Terra (ultra) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.1 | 81.3 | -0.2 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.1 | 81.7 | +0.4 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.5 | 81.3 | +1.2 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.8 | 79.5 | +0.3 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.2 | 82.2 | 0.0 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.0 | 81.3 | +1.7 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 80.6 | 78.5 | +2.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.3 | 82.1 | -1.8 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 81.8 | 79.9 | +1.9 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.6 | 78.2 | +2.4 |
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