Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6.1 Terra
GPT-5.6 Sol (low) leads GPT-6.1 Terra (max) by 256 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 180 Elo apart. Even GPT-5.6 Sol's lowest-rated configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra), ranks above GPT-6.1 Terra (max). Among 84 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol is #9 and GPT-6.1 Terra is #23. Cost per script: $0.113 for GPT-5.6 Sol (low) and $0.079 for GPT-6.1 Terra (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:15 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol (low)
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol (low) for the script you'll record, since it leads every GPT-6.1 Terra setting with separate ranges for $0.113 a script.
PickGPT-6.1 Terra
GPT-6.1 Terra (low)
Pick GPT-6.1 Terra (low) for fast, cheap drafts at $0.027 and 0.5 minutes a script, since I wouldn't pay for its pricier settings.
The older Sol model beats the new Terra one at every setting, and the price gap is smaller than you'd guess. GPT-5.6 Sol (low) leads GPT-6.1 Terra (max) by 256 Elo with 95% ranges 180 apart, the #9 model of 84 against the #23 model. Even GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra), the lower of its two settings, sits 247 Elo above Terra's best. I would save the money on extra thinking for both models. Sol slips 9 Elo from low to ultra at 3.2 times the cost, and Terra's five settings sit within 25 Elo of each other with overlapping ranges, so I would run the cheap low setting. Low against low, Sol costs $0.113 a script against $0.027, about four times as much, and takes 0.9 minutes to Terra's 0.5. For that it leads eight of the nine metrics, by more than three points on YouTube structure, tone and visual cues, and it wins all ten scripts. Terra writes with less filler, 2.6 points ahead on slop. For a script I'd record, I'd pay about nine cents more for Sol at low. For quick drafts, Terra at low does the job for about a quarter of the price.
Disclosure: both models come from the same lab as one of the four judges, GPT-6.1 Sol. The other judges sit outside that lab, so 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 GPT-6.1 Terra, 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.
- Each bar describes one configuration. Overlap alone does not establish a tie or decide their order. Comparing these ranges does not directly test the difference between a pair.
- 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 | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | 2179 | 2139 to 2220 | 82.3 | $0.113 | 0.9 min | #17 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | 2170 | 2114 to 2218 | 82.3 | $0.367 | 4.1 min | #19 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | 1923 | 1884 to 1959 | 80.3 | $0.079 | 1.8 min | #43 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (high) | 1922 | 1881 to 1958 | 80.3 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | #44 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (low) | 1920 | 1879 to 1961 | 80.2 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | #46 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (xhigh) | 1906 | 1869 to 1944 | 80.1 | $0.028 | 0.5 min | #48 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (medium) | 1898 | 1852 to 1942 | 79.9 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | #49 |
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.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. The 95% ranges describe individual configurations; overlap alone establishes neither a tie nor an order for a pair.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. GPT-5.6 Sol (low) leads GPT-6.1 Terra (max) by 256 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2139 to 2220 against 1884 to 1959), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Ranks Higher. Both GPT-5.6 Sol configurations rank above all five GPT-6.1 Terra configurations: the lowest-rated, GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) at Elo 2170, still beats GPT-6.1 Terra (max) at Elo 1923. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2179 and $0.113 per script leads GPT-6.1 Terra (low) at Elo 1920 and $0.027 per script by 259 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: 2179 against 1920. 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 GPT-6.1 Terra's Best. The cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-6.1 Terra (max), at Elo 1923 and $0.079 per script, is GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at Elo 2179 and $0.113 per script. It costs about 1.4 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-5.6 Sol moves -9 Elo from low to ultra, at about 3.2 times the cost per script. GPT-6.1 Terra moves +3 Elo from low to max, at about 2.9 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 six of the nine metrics and GPT-6.1 Terra (max) on three. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match 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) | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.27 | 1.68 |
| Lowest script score | 79.8 Script 4 | 77.9 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 84.2 Script 9 | 83.2 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 5.3 |
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 GPT-6.1 Terra (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 82.1 | 80.2 | +1.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 80.7 | +1.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.3 | 80.4 | +1.9 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.8 | 79.6 | +0.2 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.2 | 80.1 | +3.1 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.8 | 82.2 | +0.6 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.0 | 79.9 | +2.1 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.6 | 79.1 | +3.5 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.2 | 83.2 | +1.0 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.0 | 77.9 | +4.1 |
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