Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs GLM-5.3
Too close to call: the best configurations, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) and GLM-5.3 (max), have the same Writing Elo, 2194. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol is #8 and GLM-5.3 is #9. Cost per script: $0.113 for GPT-5.6 Sol (low) and $0.240 for GLM-5.3 (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 substance-heavy drafts at $0.113 and about a minute, since ultra costs 3.2 times as much and rates 12 Elo lower.
PickGLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 (max)
Pick GLM-5.3 (max) when the voice has to come from the model, with the highest tone score of the three settings at $0.240 a script.
The board can't call this one. GPT-5.6 Sol is the #8 model of 81 and GLM-5.3 the #9 model, each ranked by its best setting, and GPT-5.6 Sol (low) and GLM-5.3 (max) share the same Writing Elo, 2194, with 95% ranges that overlap almost entirely. GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) sits 12 Elo below both, inside the same overlap, and I'd skip it: it costs about 3.2 times as much as low and takes more than four times as long. The scores show two different writers. GPT-5.6 Sol brings more substance, 3.9 to 4.8 points more depending on the setting. GLM sounds a little more like me, one to two points up on tone, and it holds the requested length better. Low costs $0.113, less than half of GLM's $0.240, and takes about a minute against six. With the writing this close, that makes GPT-5.6 Sol at low the one I'd buy for most drafts. A voice that's slightly off is harder for me to fix in an edit than a missing detail, so I'd keep GLM for the script where the voice has to arrive right.
Disclosure: GPT-5.6 Sol and GLM-5.3 each come from the same lab as one of the judges (GPT-6.1 Sol and GLM 5.3 Flash). Neither is 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 GLM-5.3, 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 |
| GLM-5.3 (max) | 2194 | 2161 to 2230 | 82.4 | $0.240 | 6.1 min | 46,444 | #17 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | 2182 | 2143 to 2227 | 82.3 | $0.367 | 4.1 min | N/A | #19 |
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) and GLM-5.3 (max) have the same Writing Elo, 2194. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- 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.
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 GLM-5.3 (max) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put GLM-5.3 (max) ahead, with a 4.6-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) | GLM-5.3 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.27 | 1.39 |
| Lowest script score | 79.8 Script 4 | 80.5 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 84.2 Script 9 | 84.1 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 3.6 |
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 Sol (low) minus GLM-5.3 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | GLM-5.3 (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 82.1 | 82.1 | 0.0 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 82.5 | 0.0 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.3 | 81.5 | +0.8 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.8 | 81.0 | -1.2 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.2 | 82.5 | +0.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.8 | 82.9 | -0.1 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.0 | 84.1 | -2.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 82.7 | -0.1 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.2 | 84.0 | +0.2 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.0 | 80.5 | +1.5 |
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