Model Comparison
GPT-6 Astra vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
GPT-6 Astra (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 145 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 69 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-6 Astra is #11 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #14. Cost per script: $1.15 for GPT-6 Astra (max) and $0.017 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-6 Astra
GPT-6 Astra (max)
Pick GPT-6 Astra (max) for a fact-heavy script, where its lead on substance and visual cues is worth $1.15.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) for any script that doesn't lean on dense facts, since at $0.017 the board cannot separate it from GPT-6 Astra (medium).
This page has a clear order at the top and one setting I can't justify below it. GPT-6 Astra (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 145 Elo, and their 95% ranges don't overlap, which is strong evidence for that order. By best setting, GPT-6 Astra is the #11 model of 78 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash the #14 model. Astra earns it on substance and visual cues, about five and seven points ahead. The setting I can't justify is GPT-6 Astra (medium). It lands 37 Elo below DeepSeek at max with overlapping ranges, so the board can't separate them, and it costs 15 times as much while scoring 13 points lower on length. DeepSeek at max writes the steadiest drafts on the page, and thinking is almost free there: 402 Elo from no thinking to max for about a cent more a script. So I'd compare top against top. Astra at max costs $1.15 and takes more than nine minutes, while DeepSeek at max costs $0.017 and takes under three. I'd pay Astra's price for a technical script that lives on its facts. Everything else I'd send to DeepSeek.
Disclosure: GPT-6 Astra 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 Astra and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, 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-6 Astra (max) | 2185 | 2145 to 2223 | 82.3 | $1.15 | 9.2 min | N/A | #21 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | 2040 | 1999 to 2076 | 81.0 | $0.017 | 2.4 min | 22,010 | #28 |
| GPT-6 Astra (medium) | 2003 | 1968 to 2035 | 80.7 | $0.262 | 1.5 min | N/A | #32 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) | 1971 | 1925 to 2010 | 80.3 | $0.012 | 1.1 min | 13,809 | #38 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (low) | 1856 | 1815 to 1906 | 79.3 | $0.0077 | 0.7 min | 6,740 | #46 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) | 1638 | 1588 to 1680 | 76.8 | $0.0037 | 0.3 min | 0 | #61 |
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-6 Astra (max) leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) by 145 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2145 to 2223 against 1999 to 2076), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-6 Astra (medium) at Elo 2003 and $0.262 per script leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (no thinking) at Elo 1638 and $0.0037 per script by 365 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At max, the one level name both models use, GPT-6 Astra has the higher Writing Elo: 2185 against 2040. 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-6 Astra Configuration Above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's Best. The cheapest GPT-6 Astra configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), at Elo 2040 and $0.017 per script, is GPT-6 Astra (max), at Elo 2185 and $1.15 per script. It costs about 68 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-6 Astra moves +182 Elo from medium to max, at about 4.4 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash moves +402 Elo from no thinking to max, at about 4.6 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 Astra (max) scores higher on six of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) on three. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put GPT-6 Astra (max) ahead, with a 5.0-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GPT-6 Astra (max) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.87 | 1.30 |
| Lowest script score | 80.6 Script 1 | 79.7 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 85.8 Script 9 | 82.4 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 5.2 | 2.7 |
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 Astra (max) minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-6 Astra (max) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 80.6 | 80.8 | -0.2 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.0 | 81.2 | +0.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 84.3 | 81.2 | +3.1 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 82.7 | 80.1 | +2.6 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 81.3 | 81.1 | +0.2 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.6 | 80.8 | +2.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 81.6 | 82.4 | -0.8 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.6 | 80.7 | -0.1 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 85.8 | 82.2 | +3.6 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.7 | 79.7 | +1.0 |
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