Model Comparison
GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra
Too close to call: the best configurations, GPT-6.1 Sol (max) and GPT-6 Astra (max), are 29 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-6.1 Sol is #9 and GPT-6 Astra is #11. Cost per script: $0.239 for GPT-6.1 Sol (max) and $1.15 for GPT-6 Astra (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) for the script you'll record, because at $0.199 its range overlaps that of GPT-6 Astra (max), which costs almost six times as much.
PickGPT-6 Astra
GPT-6 Astra (max)
Pick GPT-6 Astra (max) when you want a draft back about a minute before Sol's top setting, with the best slop and length scores on this page, at $1.15 a script.
I'd run GPT-6.1 Sol here, and the reason is the bill. GPT-6.1 Sol holds the higher Elo at both level names these two share, by 30 points at medium and 29 at max, and both times the 95% ranges overlap, so the board can't separate them. Each ranked by its best setting, GPT-6.1 Sol is the #9 model of 78 and GPT-6 Astra the #11 model. At max only YouTube structure is more than a point apart, in Sol's favor, and Astra costs $1.15 a script against $0.239, almost five times as much. One step down, GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) at $0.199 still overlaps Astra's top setting. It also sits 206 Elo above GPT-6 Astra (medium), with separate ranges, for less money. The cheap end goes the same way: GPT-6.1 Sol (low) lands 96 Elo above Astra at medium for about a fifth of the price, with separate ranges. Astra's main advantage is speed, about a minute sooner at max, and for me that doesn't justify the bill. Sol at xhigh for the script I record, Sol at low for drafts.
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-6.1 Sol and GPT-6 Astra, 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 Astra (max) | 2185 | 2145 to 2223 | 82.3 | $1.15 | 9.2 min | #21 |
| 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 |
| GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 2003 | 1968 to 2035 | 80.7 | $0.262 | 1.5 min | #32 |
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) at Elo 2214 (range 2184 to 2248) and GPT-6 Astra (max) at Elo 2185 (range 2145 to 2223) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-6.1 Sol (low) at Elo 2099 and $0.052 per script leads GPT-6 Astra (medium) at Elo 2003 and $0.262 per script by 96 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. GPT-6.1 Sol has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: medium and max. The 95% ranges overlap at every one 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.
- Cheapest GPT-6.1 Sol Configuration Above GPT-6 Astra's Best. The cheapest GPT-6.1 Sol configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-6 Astra (max), at Elo 2185 and $1.15 per script, is GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh), at Elo 2209 and $0.199 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs less than the configuration it beats.
- 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. GPT-6 Astra moves +182 Elo from medium to max, at about 4.4 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Astra | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| medium | 2033 | 2003 | +30 | Overlap |
| max | 2214 | 2185 | +29 | Overlap |
Gap is GPT-6.1 Sol minus GPT-6 Astra 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 three of the nine metrics and GPT-6 Astra (max) on six. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, YouTube Best Practices does the most to put GPT-6.1 Sol (max) ahead, with a 2.0-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) | GPT-6 Astra (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.40 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 80.6 Script 10 | 80.6 Script 1 |
| Highest script score | 85.0 Script 9 | 85.8 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 4.4 | 5.2 |
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 GPT-6 Astra (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | GPT-6 Astra (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.7 | 80.6 | +1.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 82.0 | +0.5 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 83.6 | 84.3 | -0.7 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 82.5 | 82.7 | -0.2 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.0 | 81.3 | +0.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.3 | 83.6 | -0.3 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.2 | 81.6 | +0.6 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.0 | 80.6 | +0.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 85.0 | 85.8 | -0.8 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.6 | 80.7 | -0.1 |
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