Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
GPT-5.6 Sol (low) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 178 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 105 Elo apart. Even GPT-5.6 Sol's lowest-rated configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra), ranks above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max). Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol is #8 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #14. Cost per script: $0.113 for GPT-5.6 Sol (low) and $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 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 ultra rates no higher and costs more than three times the $0.113 price.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) for open-weight volume drafting at $0.017 a script, with the closest length on this page.
Both GPT-5.6 Sol settings rate above all four DeepSeek V4.1 Flash settings, and the cheaper one is enough. GPT-5.6 Sol (low) sits 178 Elo above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), and their ranges don't overlap, which is strong evidence for that order. That's the #8 model of 78 against the #14 model, each ranked by its best setting. GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) rates 5 Elo below low inside overlapping ranges for more than three times the cost and more than four times the wait, which I wouldn't pay for. Sol's lead is content: more than four points on substance, plus a stronger hook. DeepSeek at max stays within half a point on tone, the heaviest metric, and lands closer to the requested length. It also gains the most from thinking, 402 Elo from no thinking to max, and max still costs under two cents. The trade is price: $0.017 a script for DeepSeek at max against $0.113 for Sol at low, more than six times as much. My pick for a published script is Sol at low, and DeepSeek at max covers volume and anything that needs open weights.
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, 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) | 2218 | 2181 to 2251 | 82.3 | $0.113 | 0.9 min | N/A | #16 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | 2213 | 2173 to 2266 | 82.3 | $0.367 | 4.1 min | N/A | #18 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | 2040 | 1999 to 2076 | 81.0 | $0.017 | 2.4 min | 22,010 | #28 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) | 1971 | 1925 to 2010 | 80.3 | $0.012 | 1.1 min | 13,809 | #38 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (low) | 1856 | 1815 to 1906 | 79.3 | $0.0077 | 0.7 min | 6,740 | #46 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) | 1638 | 1588 to 1680 | 76.8 | $0.0037 | 0.3 min | 0 | #61 |
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 (max) by 178 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2181 to 2251 against 1999 to 2076), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Ranks Higher. Both GPT-5.6 Sol configurations rank above all four DeepSeek V4.1 Flash configurations: the lowest-rated, GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) at Elo 2213, still beats DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at Elo 2040. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2218 and $0.113 per script leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) at Elo 1638 and $0.0037 per script by 580 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At low, the one level name both models use, GPT-5.6 Sol has the higher Writing Elo: 2218 against 1856. Their 95% ranges do not overlap there. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's Best. The cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), at Elo 2040 and $0.017 per script, is GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at Elo 2218 and $0.113 per script. It costs about 6.6 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-5.6 Sol moves -5 Elo from low to ultra, at about 3.2 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash moves +402 Elo from no thinking to max, at about 4.6 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 eight of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) on one. 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 4.6-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 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.27 | 1.30 |
| Lowest script score | 79.8 Script 4 | 79.7 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 84.2 Script 9 | 82.4 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 2.7 |
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 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 82.1 | 80.8 | +1.3 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 81.2 | +1.3 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.3 | 81.2 | +1.1 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.8 | 80.1 | -0.3 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.2 | 81.1 | +2.1 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.8 | 80.8 | +2.0 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.0 | 82.4 | -0.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 80.7 | +1.9 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.2 | 82.2 | +2.0 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.0 | 79.7 | +2.3 |
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