Model Comparison
Kimi K3 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Too close to call: the best configurations, Kimi K3 (max) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), are 89 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 81 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3 is #10 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is #13. Cost per script: $0.362 for Kimi K3 (max) and $0.014 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 16:59 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
Ranks in the picks and verdict are configuration ranks: each setting's place among all 134 configurations. The cards above give each model's rank.
PickKimi K3
Kimi K3 (max)
Pick Kimi K3 (max) for a final script where visual cues carry the video, since it leads DeepSeek's best there by 4.7 points at $0.362 a script.
PickDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) for daily drafting at $0.014 a script, since the board can't separate it from Kimi's best and Kimi K3 (high) ranks below it.
Kimi K3 at max wins more scripts, but the board can't separate it from DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max). Kimi K3 (max) sits 89 Elo higher, #20 on the board against #24, and their 95% ranges overlap at the edge. Ranked by best configuration, that's the #10 model of 81 against the #13 model. Kimi wins eight of the ten scripts, with 4.7 more points on visual cues and a stronger hook, while DeepSeek is a touch ahead on tone, craft and length, and its drafts are the steadiest on this page. The price gap is huge: $0.362 and 9.9 minutes a script for Kimi against $0.014 and 1.3 minutes, about 26 times as much. Kimi's thinking level matters a lot. Kimi K3 (high) drops 215 Elo from max and lands 126 below DeepSeek at max with separate ranges, for $0.128, so I wouldn't run Kimi at high at all. At max it's a real option for a final script where the visual cues carry the video. Day to day, I'd draft on DeepSeek at max.
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 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, 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 (max) | 2176 | 2140 to 2222 | 82.2 | $0.362 | 9.9 min | 18,568 | #20 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | 2087 | 2039 to 2140 | 81.6 | $0.014 | 1.3 min | 16,960 | #24 |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) | 2050 | 2001 to 2092 | 81.1 | $0.0095 | 0.9 min | 9,728 | #27 |
| Kimi K3 (high) | 1961 | 1916 to 2004 | 80.3 | $0.128 | 2.8 min | 3,081 | #39 |
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. Kimi K3 (max) at Elo 2176 (range 2140 to 2222) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) at Elo 2087 (range 2039 to 2140) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) at Elo 2050 and $0.0095 per script leads Kimi K3 (high) at Elo 1961 and $0.128 per script by 89 Elo. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Across the level names both models use, Kimi K3 leads at max; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads at high. 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. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), at $0.014 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Kimi K3 (max), at $0.362 per script: 2039 to 2140 against 2140 to 2222, so the board cannot separate them. Kimi K3 (max) costs about 26 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Kimi K3 Configuration Above DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017's Best. The cheapest Kimi K3 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), at Elo 2087 and $0.014 per script, is Kimi K3 (max), at Elo 2176 and $0.362 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 26 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Kimi K3 moves +215 Elo from high to max, at about 2.8 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 moves +37 Elo from high to max, at about 1.5 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Kimi K3 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1961 | 2050 | -89 | Overlap |
| max | 2176 | 2087 | +89 | Overlap |
Gap is Kimi K3 minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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
Kimi K3 (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Hook Strength does the most to put Kimi K3 (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
| Kimi K3 (max) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.58 |
| Lowest script score | 80.0 Script 10 | 79.9 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 83.0 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.8 | 3.1 |
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 (max) minus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3 (max) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.4 | 80.5 | +0.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.6 | 80.8 | +1.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.8 | 80.5 | +1.3 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 79.9 | +0.2 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 82.9 | +0.5 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.2 | 81.2 | +2.0 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.6 | 83.0 | +0.6 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.3 | 82.6 | -0.3 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 83.0 | +0.8 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.0 | 81.6 | -1.6 |
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