Model Comparison
GPT-6.1 Terra vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Overlapping ranges: the best configurations, GPT-6.1 Terra (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), are 3 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 84 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-6.1 Terra is #23 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro is #24. Cost per script: $0.079 for GPT-6.1 Terra (max) and $0.017 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:15 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-6.1 Terra
GPT-6.1 Terra (low)
Pick GPT-6.1 Terra (low) when you want the draft now, at 0.5 minutes and $0.027 a script with 4.2 more points of substance than MiMo.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) for the lowest bill and a closer voice, at $0.017 a script, when a 6.2-minute wait is fine.
The Elo point estimates are close, and I'd choose on the wait. GPT-6.1 Terra (max) sits 3 Elo above MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), and GPT-6.1 Terra (low) lands on the same 1920 Elo as MiMo, all with overlapping 95% ranges. That makes GPT-6.1 Terra the #23 model of 84 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro the #24 model. Terra's five settings sit within 25 Elo of each other, and max costs 2.9 times as much as low for a gain I wouldn't pay that much for. MiMo has a single setting, so there's no ladder on its side. MiMo is the cheaper one, $0.017 a script against $0.027 for Terra at low, but it thinks for 6.2 minutes where Terra answers in 0.5. The metrics split down the middle. Terra brings 4.2 more points of substance and less filler, 4.7 points up on slop. MiMo sounds more like me, 2.7 points up on tone, leads YouTube structure by 2.5, lands the length 2.9 points better than Terra at low, and takes six of the ten scripts. A cent a script isn't worth almost six minutes to me, so I'd run Terra at low and keep MiMo for batches I can leave running.
Disclosure: GPT-6.1 Terra 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-6.1 Terra and MiMo-V2.6-Pro, 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 | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | 1923 | 1884 to 1959 | 80.3 | $0.079 | 1.8 min | N/A | #43 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (high) | 1922 | 1881 to 1958 | 80.3 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | N/A | #44 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | 1920 | 1870 to 1965 | 80.2 | $0.017 | 6.2 min | 10,176 | #45 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (low) | 1920 | 1879 to 1961 | 80.2 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | N/A | #46 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (xhigh) | 1906 | 1869 to 1944 | 80.1 | $0.028 | 0.5 min | N/A | #48 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (medium) | 1898 | 1852 to 1942 | 79.9 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | N/A | #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. 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. The 95% ranges describe individual configurations; overlap alone establishes neither a tie nor an order for a pair.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. GPT-6.1 Terra (max) at Elo 1923 (range 1884 to 1959) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) at Elo 1920 (range 1870 to 1965) have overlapping 95% ranges.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), at $0.017 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of GPT-6.1 Terra (max), at $0.079 per script: 1870 to 1965 against 1884 to 1959. GPT-6.1 Terra (max) costs about 4.6 times as much per script.
- Cheapest GPT-6.1 Terra Configuration Above MiMo-V2.6-Pro's Best. The cheapest GPT-6.1 Terra configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), at Elo 1920 and $0.017 per script, is GPT-6.1 Terra (high), at Elo 1922 and $0.027 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap. It costs about 1.6 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. 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-6.1 Terra (max) scores higher on six of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) on three. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put GPT-6.1 Terra (max) ahead, with a 4.9-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 77.9 Script 10 | 78.0 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 83.2 Script 9 | 82.5 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 5.3 | 4.5 |
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 Terra (max) minus MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.2 | 79.3 | +0.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.7 | 79.9 | +0.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.4 | 79.7 | +0.7 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.6 | 78.0 | +1.6 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 80.1 | 81.5 | -1.4 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.2 | 81.1 | +1.1 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 79.9 | 80.3 | -0.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 79.1 | 80.7 | -1.6 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.2 | 82.5 | +0.7 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 77.9 | 79.4 | -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