Model Comparison
GPT-6 Sol vs Claude Fable 5
GPT-6 Sol (max) leads Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) by 140 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 37 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GPT-6 Sol is #4 and Claude Fable 5 is #6. Cost per script: $0.126 for GPT-6 Sol (max) and $3.20 for Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGPT-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol (max)
Pick GPT-6 Sol (max) for any script you'll record, since it sits 140 Elo above Fable's best with separate ranges and costs $0.126 against $3.20.
PickClaude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 (high)
Pick Claude Fable 5 (high) when YouTube structure and continuity come first, since it beats both GPT-6 Sol settings on each at $1.34 a script, and the board can't separate it from max effort at $3.20.
GPT-6 Sol (max) sits 140 Elo above Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), and their 95% ranges don't overlap, which is strong evidence for that order. By best setting, that's the #4 model of 78 against the #6 model. The bill points the same way. Sol costs $0.126 a script and takes two and a half minutes. Fable costs $3.20 and takes twelve and a half. Honestly, that's about 25 times the price for the lower-rated script. Sol doesn't even need its top setting to stay close: GPT-6 Sol (medium) at $0.056 has a range that overlaps Fable's best, so the board can't separate those two. Inside Fable, max effort adds 83 Elo over Claude Fable 5 (high) for about 2.4 times the cost, and those two ranges overlap. High costs $1.34, though Sol at max sits 223 Elo above it with separate ranges. Fable has real strengths. It's more than three points ahead on YouTube Best Practices and two on continuity. Sol answers with stronger hooks, more substance, less slop and steadier drafts. At these prices, I'd run GPT-6 Sol at max.
Disclosure: GPT-6 Sol and Claude Fable 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 Sol and Claude Fable 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 Sol (max) | 2379 | 2335 to 2424 | 83.5 | $0.126 | 2.5 min | #8 |
| Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | 2239 | 2186 to 2298 | 82.9 | $3.20 | 12.5 min | #12 |
| GPT-6 Sol (medium) | 2223 | 2180 to 2265 | 82.5 | $0.056 | 0.8 min | #14 |
| Claude Fable 5 (high) | 2156 | 2102 to 2204 | 81.9 | $1.34 | 4.9 min | #22 |
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 Sol (max) leads Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) by 140 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2335 to 2424 against 2186 to 2298), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-6 Sol (medium) at Elo 2223 and $0.056 per script leads Claude Fable 5 (high) at Elo 2156 and $1.34 per script by 67 Elo. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At max, the one level name both models use, GPT-6 Sol has the higher Writing Elo: 2379 against 2239. 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 Sol Configuration Above Claude Fable 5's Best. The cheapest GPT-6 Sol configuration with a higher Writing Elo than Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), at Elo 2239 and $3.20 per script, is GPT-6 Sol (max), at Elo 2379 and $0.126 per script. It costs less than the configuration it beats.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-6 Sol moves +156 Elo from medium to max, at about 2.3 times the cost per script. Claude Fable 5 moves +83 Elo from high to max effort, at about 2.4 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 Sol (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Hook Strength does the most to put GPT-6 Sol (max) ahead, with a 5.2-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GPT-6 Sol (max) | Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.27 | 1.96 |
| Lowest script score | 82.0 Script 10 | 81.2 Script 8 |
| Highest script score | 85.3 Script 9 | 86.4 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.3 | 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 Sol (max) minus Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GPT-6 Sol (max) | Claude Fable 5 (max effort, Opus 4.8 fallback) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.0 | 83.1 | -0.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 83.7 | 83.7 | 0.0 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 84.3 | 81.6 | +2.7 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 83.3 | 81.6 | +1.7 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 82.5 | +0.9 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 84.8 | 82.9 | +1.9 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.7 | 86.4 | -3.7 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.8 | 81.2 | +1.6 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 85.3 | 83.2 | +2.1 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.0 | 82.8 | -0.8 |
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