Model Comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Wonder
GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 197 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 113 Elo apart. Even GPT-5.6 Sol's lowest-rated configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol (low), ranks above Muse Wonder (max). Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-5.6 Sol is #9 and Muse Wonder is #16. Cost per script: $0.367 for GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) and $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol (low)
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol (low) for any script, since at $0.113 it beats Muse's best by 195 Elo with separate ranges.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) only if Muse is the model you have, since its high and adaptive settings sit 341 and 401 Elo lower, mostly on Length Adherence.
The cheapest setting on this page settles it. GPT-5.6 Sol (low) costs $0.113 a script, a little over a third of Muse Wonder (max) at $0.309, finishes in under a minute against two, and sits 195 Elo higher with 95% ranges that don't overlap. Ranked by best setting, GPT-5.6 Sol is the #9 model of 80 and Muse Wonder the #16 model. Both Sol settings rank above every Muse setting. Ultra is the one I'd skip: just 2 Elo over low, inside overlapping ranges, for about 3.2 times the price. Within Muse, max is the only setting worth running. Muse Wonder (high) sits 341 Elo under it and Muse Wonder (adaptive), which leaves the level to the model, 401 under, mostly because both miss the requested length, 41.1 and 37.4 on Length Adherence against 82.5. Set against Muse's max, Sol at low wins all ten scripts and leads on every metric, by 7.2 points on length and close to three on craft, while Muse stays within half a point on substance and continuity. Sol's drafts are also steadier from one to the next. I'd run GPT-5.6 Sol at low and wouldn't reach for Muse here.
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 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 Sol (ultra) | 2202 | 2157 to 2243 | 82.3 | $0.367 | 4.1 min | N/A | #17 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol (low) | 2200 | 2166 to 2234 | 82.3 | $0.113 | 0.9 min | N/A | #19 |
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| 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 Sol (ultra) leads Muse Wonder (max) by 197 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2157 to 2243 against 1959 to 2044), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Ranks Higher. Both GPT-5.6 Sol configurations rank above all three Muse Wonder configurations: the lowest-rated, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2200, still beats Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 2005. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-5.6 Sol (low) at Elo 2200 and $0.113 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script by 536 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at $0.113 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra), at $0.367 per script: 2166 to 2234 against 2157 to 2243, so the board cannot separate them. GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) costs about 3.2 times as much per script.
- Cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol Configuration Above Muse Wonder's Best. The cheapest GPT-5.6 Sol configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script, is GPT-5.6 Sol (low), at Elo 2200 and $0.113 per script. It costs less than the configuration it beats.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-5.6 Sol moves +2 Elo from low to ultra, at about 3.2 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 Sol (ultra) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics, and the other one is a tie. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) ahead, with a 9.5-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | Muse Wonder (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.70 | 1.91 |
| Lowest script score | 80.1 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 84.6 Script 9 | 82.2 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 4.5 | 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 Sol (ultra) minus Muse Wonder (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) | Muse Wonder (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.5 | 81.3 | +0.2 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.1 | 81.7 | +0.4 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 82.6 | 81.3 | +1.3 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 81.4 | 79.5 | +1.9 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.5 | 82.2 | +0.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 84.2 | 81.3 | +2.9 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.2 | 78.5 | +3.7 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.5 | 82.1 | +0.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.6 | 79.9 | +4.7 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.1 | 78.2 | +1.9 |
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