Model Comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Haiku 5.5
GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) by 205 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 140 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-6.1 Sol is #9 and Claude Haiku 5.5 is #16. Cost per script: $0.239 for GPT-6.1 Sol (max) and $0.103 for Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol (low)
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol (low) as the default, since it rates above every Haiku setting at $0.052 a script in 1.5 minutes.
PickClaude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) for bulk drafts at $0.029 a script, because it already holds most of what Haiku gains from thinking and finishes in 3.6 minutes.
Claude Haiku 5.5 doesn't reach GPT-6.1 Sol's cheapest setting even at its most expensive one. Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) costs $0.103 a script and takes more than twelve minutes. GPT-6.1 Sol (low) costs $0.052, finishes in 1.5 minutes and rates 90 Elo higher. Their 95% ranges are separate, so I see no reason to pay double and wait eight times as long for the lower-rated draft. Best against best, Sol leads by 205 Elo, the #9 model of 78 against the #16 model, each ranked by its best setting. Sol's medium and high rate slightly below low inside overlapping ranges, so they add cost and nothing I can see. Haiku is the opposite: it gains 505 Elo from low to max effort, and most of that arrives by xhigh. Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) costs $0.029, and max effort adds 82 Elo with ranges that only just separate, for about 3.6 times the price. Haiku's writing craft comes within a few tenths of Sol's at the top settings, and it loses on the hook. For me it's Sol at low, and Haiku at xhigh when every cent counts.
Disclosure: GPT-6.1 Sol and Claude Haiku 5.5 each come from the same lab as one of the judges (GPT-6.1 Sol and Claude Opus 5.5). 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-6.1 Sol and Claude Haiku 5.5, 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 | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | 2214 | 2184 to 2248 | 82.4 | $0.239 | 10.2 min | #17 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) | 2209 | 2161 to 2256 | 82.4 | $0.199 | 7.8 min | #19 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (low) | 2099 | 2062 to 2133 | 81.4 | $0.052 | 1.5 min | #24 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (high) | 2055 | 2018 to 2094 | 81.1 | $0.094 | 3.3 min | #26 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (medium) | 2033 | 1995 to 2071 | 81.0 | $0.054 | 1.6 min | #29 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | 2009 | 1972 to 2044 | 80.8 | $0.103 | 12.6 min | #31 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) | 1927 | 1883 to 1965 | 80.0 | $0.029 | 3.6 min | #41 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (high) | 1723 | 1679 to 1760 | 78.0 | $0.012 | 1.5 min | #53 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium) | 1620 | 1572 to 1670 | 76.7 | $0.0067 | 0.8 min | #62 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (low) | 1504 | 1461 to 1550 | 75.2 | $0.0045 | 0.5 min | #74 |
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. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) by 205 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2184 to 2248 against 1972 to 2044), which is strong evidence for that order.
- GPT-6.1 Sol at Its Lowest Thinking Level. GPT-6.1 Sol's lowest thinking level, GPT-6.1 Sol (low) at Elo 2099 and $0.052 per script, already ranks above Claude Haiku 5.5's best, Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) at Elo 2009 and $0.103 per script. Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) costs about 2 times as much per script.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: low, medium, high, xhigh, and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at any of them. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), at $0.199 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of GPT-6.1 Sol (max), at $0.239 per script: 2161 to 2256 against 2184 to 2248, so the board cannot separate them. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) costs about 1.2 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-6.1 Sol moves +115 Elo from low to max, at about 4.6 times the cost per script. Claude Haiku 5.5 moves +505 Elo from low to max effort, at about 23 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | GPT-6.1 Sol | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| low | 2099 | 1504 | +595 | Separate |
| medium | 2033 | 1620 | +413 | Separate |
| high | 2055 | 1723 | +332 | Separate |
| xhigh | 2209 | 1927 | +282 | Separate |
| max | 2214 | 2009 | +205 | Separate |
Gap is GPT-6.1 Sol minus Claude Haiku 5.5 at the same level name, using each model's highest-rated configuration at that level.
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-6.1 Sol (max) scores higher on all nine metrics. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Hook Strength does the most to put GPT-6.1 Sol (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-6.1 Sol (max) | Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.40 | 1.55 |
| Lowest script score | 80.6 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 85.0 Script 9 | 82.6 Script 4 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 4.4 |
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-6.1 Sol (max) minus Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.7 | 80.3 | +1.4 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 80.7 | +1.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 83.6 | 80.8 | +2.8 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 82.5 | 82.6 | -0.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.0 | 81.7 | +0.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.3 | 81.1 | +2.2 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.2 | 80.0 | +2.2 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.0 | 81.3 | -0.3 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 85.0 | 81.5 | +3.5 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.6 | 78.2 | +2.4 |
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