Model Comparison
Kimi K3 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Kimi K3 (max) leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) by 253 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 169 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3 is #10 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is #21. Cost per script: $0.362 for Kimi K3 (max) and $0.077 for DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickKimi K3
Kimi K3 (max)
Pick Kimi K3 (max) for the script that goes on camera, since it's the Kimi setting whose range sits clear of DeepSeek's best, at $0.362 a script.
PickDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) for drafts when you can wait about nine minutes, since the board can't separate it from Kimi K3 (high) and it costs $0.077 against $0.128.
These two models meet at Kimi K3 (high) and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max). They're 28 Elo apart with overlapping 95% ranges, so the board can't separate them. DeepSeek costs $0.077 a script and Kimi at high costs $0.128, about 1.7 times as much. What Kimi gives you for that is time, 2.8 minutes against 8.9, and a hook about two points stronger. DeepSeek lands nine points closer to the target length. At the top, Kimi is clearly ahead, the #10 model of 78 against the #21 model, each ranked by its best setting: Kimi K3 (max) sits 253 Elo above DeepSeek's best with separate ranges, and it leads all nine metrics. It also costs $0.362 and takes 9.9 minutes, the slowest setting here. Both models have open weights, and both need their top setting. Max adds 225 Elo on Kimi and 600 on DeepSeek, whose high setting falls to 1350 Elo. I'd pay for Kimi at max on a script that goes on camera. For drafts I'd take DeepSeek at max over Kimi at high: less money, better length control, and I can live with the wait.
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 Pro 0813, 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) | 2203 | 2158 to 2243 | 82.2 | $0.362 | 9.9 min | 18,568 | #20 |
| Kimi K3 (high) | 1978 | 1936 to 2029 | 80.3 | $0.128 | 2.8 min | 3,081 | #37 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 1950 | 1906 to 1989 | 80.1 | $0.077 | 8.9 min | 31,573 | #40 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high) | 1350 | 1272 to 1428 | 72.3 | $0.031 | 1.3 min | 8,879 | #81 |
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) leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) by 253 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2158 to 2243 against 1906 to 1989), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Kimi K3 (high) at Elo 1978 and $0.128 per script leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high) at Elo 1350 and $0.031 per script by 628 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Kimi K3 has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at any of them. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Kimi K3 Configuration Above DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813's Best. The cheapest Kimi K3 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max), at Elo 1950 and $0.077 per script, is Kimi K3 (high), at Elo 1978 and $0.128 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 1.7 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Kimi K3 moves +225 Elo from high to max, at about 2.8 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 moves +600 Elo from high to max, at about 2.5 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Kimi K3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1978 | 1350 | +628 | Separate |
| max | 2203 | 1950 | +253 | Separate |
Gap is Kimi K3 minus DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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 all nine metrics. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put Kimi K3 (max) ahead, with a 2.4-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 Pro 0813 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.48 |
| Lowest script score | 80.0 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 81.5 Script 6 |
| Range across scripts | 3.8 | 3.3 |
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 Pro 0813 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3 (max) | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.4 | 79.5 | +1.9 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.6 | 80.6 | +2.0 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.8 | 80.8 | +1.0 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 78.5 | +1.6 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 80.9 | +2.5 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.2 | 81.5 | +1.7 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.6 | 81.1 | +2.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.3 | 80.2 | +2.1 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 79.9 | +3.9 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.0 | 78.2 | +1.8 |
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