Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
GPT-5.6 Sol (low) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) by 107 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 16 Elo apart. Even GPT-5.6 Sol's lowest-rated configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra), ranks above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max). Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol is #8 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13. Cost per script: $0.113 for GPT-5.6 Sol (low) and $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 16:59 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol (low)
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol (low) for scripts you'll publish, since it outranks every DeepSeek configuration at $0.113 and under a minute a script.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) for open-weights volume drafting at $0.014 a script, with the closest length on this page.
GPT-5.6 Sol's cheapest configuration is also its best one, and it beats everything DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has here. GPT-5.6 Sol (low) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) by 107 Elo, with 95% ranges 16 Elo apart, which is strong evidence for that order. That's the #8 model of 81 against the #13 model, each ranked by its best configuration. Sol at low is as fast as DeepSeek at high, 0.9 minutes a script, with the steadiest drafts on this page. Its lead is content: 4.8 points on substance, 4.6 on visual cues and 2.6 on hooks. DeepSeek at max lands 5.1 points closer to the requested length and edges Sol on tone, the heaviest metric. Thinking runs backwards on Sol. GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) costs about 3.2 times as much, takes 4.1 minutes and lands 12 Elo lower inside overlapping ranges, so I'd never pay for it. DeepSeek's step from high to max goes the other way, 37 Elo for about half a cent. The real trade is $0.113 a script against $0.014, about eight times as much. For a script I'll publish, I'd pay it.
Disclosure: GPT-5.6 Sol 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 Sol and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, 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 Sol (low) | 2194 | 2156 to 2232 | 82.3 | $0.113 | 0.9 min | N/A | #16 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | 2182 | 2143 to 2227 | 82.3 | $0.367 | 4.1 min | N/A | #19 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | 2087 | 2039 to 2140 | 81.6 | $0.014 | 1.3 min | 16,960 | #24 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) | 2050 | 2001 to 2092 | 81.1 | $0.0095 | 0.9 min | 9,728 | #27 |
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 Sol (low) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) by 107 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2156 to 2232 against 2039 to 2140), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Ranks Higher. Both GPT-5.6 Sol configurations rank above both DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 configurations: the lowest-rated, GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) at Elo 2182, still beats DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) at Elo 2087. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2194 and $0.113 per script leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) at Elo 2050 and $0.0095 per script by 144 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017's Best. The cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), at Elo 2087 and $0.014 per script, is GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at Elo 2194 and $0.113 per script. It costs about 8.1 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-5.6 Sol moves -12 Elo from low to ultra, at about 3.2 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 moves +37 Elo from high to max, at about 1.5 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 Sol (low) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put GPT-5.6 Sol (low) ahead, with a 4.8-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.27 | 1.58 |
| Lowest script score | 79.8 Script 4 | 79.9 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 84.2 Script 9 | 83.0 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 3.1 |
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 Sol (low) minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 82.1 | 80.5 | +1.6 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 80.8 | +1.7 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.3 | 80.5 | +1.8 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.8 | 79.9 | -0.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.2 | 82.9 | +0.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.8 | 81.2 | +1.6 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.0 | 83.0 | -1.0 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 82.6 | 0.0 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.2 | 83.0 | +1.2 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.0 | 81.6 | +0.4 |
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