Model Comparison
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Too close to call: the best configurations, Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) and GPT-6.1 Sol (max), are 11 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 83 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3.1 Pro is #7 and GPT-6.1 Sol is #8. Cost per script: $0.251 for Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) and $0.239 for GPT-6.1 Sol (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 22:06 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickKimi K3.1 Pro
Kimi K3.1 Pro (max)
Pick Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) when you want the draft in 5.5 minutes instead of 10.2, with the edge on continuity and visual cues, at $0.251.
PickGPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh)
Pick GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) for less slop and tighter length at $0.199 a script, with a range the board can't separate from Kimi's.
This one is a near tie, and speed is the clearest difference. Kimi K3.1 Pro is the #7 model of 83 and GPT-6.1 Sol the #8 model, each ranked by its best setting. At max, the one level name they share, Kimi sits 11 Elo above GPT-6.1 Sol (max), the 95% ranges overlap and the ten scripts split five each, so the board can't separate them. The price is about the same, $0.251 against $0.239, but Kimi finishes in 5.5 minutes where Sol takes 10.2. Sol at xhigh also overlaps Kimi, at $0.199 and 7.8 minutes. Lower down, Sol's ladder is uneven: low rates above high and medium for less money, and going from low to max adds 132 Elo for about 4.6 times the cost. Kimi only runs at max, so I'd hold it against Sol's top two. The metrics split by type. Kimi leads continuity by 1.6, visual cues by 1.9 and YouTube best practices by 1.1. Sol at max has 3.2 points less slop, lands the length 2.6 points closer and scores a little higher on tone. I'd take Kimi when I want the draft sooner, and Sol at xhigh to save a few cents.
Disclosure: GPT-6.1 Sol 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 Kimi K3.1 Pro and GPT-6.1 Sol, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) | 2205 | 2166 to 2246 | 82.5 | $0.251 | 5.5 min | 19,487 | #14 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | 2194 | 2154 to 2230 | 82.4 | $0.239 | 10.2 min | N/A | #16 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) | 2183 | 2147 to 2229 | 82.4 | $0.199 | 7.8 min | N/A | #19 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (low) | 2062 | 2023 to 2096 | 81.4 | $0.052 | 1.5 min | N/A | #26 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (high) | 2020 | 1983 to 2064 | 81.1 | $0.094 | 3.3 min | N/A | #29 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol (medium) | 2017 | 1979 to 2051 | 81.0 | $0.054 | 1.6 min | N/A | #30 |
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. Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) at Elo 2205 (range 2166 to 2246) and GPT-6.1 Sol (max) at Elo 2194 (range 2154 to 2230) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At max, the one level name both models use, Kimi K3.1 Pro has the higher Writing Elo: 2205 against 2194. Their 95% ranges overlap there. 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 Kimi K3.1 Pro (max), at $0.251 per script: 2147 to 2229 against 2166 to 2246, so the board cannot separate them. Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) costs about 1.3 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. GPT-6.1 Sol moves +132 Elo from low 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
Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and GPT-6.1 Sol (max) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Continuity & Emotion does the most to put Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) ahead, with a 1.6-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.65 | 1.40 |
| Lowest script score | 80.4 Script 7 | 80.6 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 85.5 Script 9 | 85.0 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 5.1 | 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 Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) minus GPT-6.1 Sol (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3.1 Pro (max) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.3 | 81.7 | -0.4 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 83.2 | 82.5 | +0.7 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.9 | 83.6 | -1.7 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 82.0 | 82.5 | -0.5 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 84.2 | 82.0 | +2.2 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.0 | 83.3 | -0.3 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 80.4 | 82.2 | -1.8 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.1 | 81.0 | +1.1 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 85.5 | 85.0 | +0.5 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.3 | 80.6 | +0.7 |
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