Model Comparison
Kimi K3 vs GPT-6.1 Terra
Kimi K3 (max) leads GPT-6.1 Terra (max) by 234 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 160 Elo apart. Among 84 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3 is #11 and GPT-6.1 Terra is #23. Cost per script: $0.362 for Kimi K3 (max) and $0.079 for GPT-6.1 Terra (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:15 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickKimi K3
Kimi K3 (max)
Pick Kimi K3 (max) for the script you'll record when a 9.9-minute wait is fine, since it leads Terra's best by 234 Elo with separate ranges at $0.362.
PickGPT-6.1 Terra
GPT-6.1 Terra (low)
Pick GPT-6.1 Terra (low) for drafts, since its individual Elo range overlaps Kimi K3 (high) and it costs about a fifth as much at $0.027 a script.
At max Kimi K3 is clearly better, and one level down their individual Elo ranges overlap. Kimi K3 (max) leads GPT-6.1 Terra (max) by 234 Elo with 95% ranges 160 apart, the #11 model of 84 against the #23 model, and wins all ten scripts. That costs $0.362 and 9.9 minutes a script. Kimi's thinking level matters: it gains 209 Elo from high to max. Kimi K3 (high) sits 28 Elo above GPT-6.1 Terra (low) with overlapping ranges, though that alone does not test their difference, and it costs $0.128 against $0.027 and takes 2.8 minutes against 0.5. Terra's five settings sit within 25 Elo of each other, and I would run low. At max, Kimi's leads are the ones that make a script feel like a video: YouTube structure, continuity and tone, by close to five points each. Terra carries 2.3 more points of substance and less filler, 4.7 points up on slop. I'd run Kimi at max for a script I'll record and Terra at low for drafts. I wouldn't run Kimi at high.
Disclosure: GPT-6.1 Terra 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 and GPT-6.1 Terra, 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.
- Each bar describes one configuration. Overlap alone does not establish a tie or decide their order. Comparing these ranges does not directly test the difference between a pair.
- 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) | 2157 | 2119 to 2197 | 82.2 | $0.362 | 9.9 min | 18,568 | #21 |
| Kimi K3 (high) | 1948 | 1903 to 1995 | 80.3 | $0.128 | 2.8 min | 3,081 | #39 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | 1923 | 1884 to 1959 | 80.3 | $0.079 | 1.8 min | N/A | #43 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (high) | 1922 | 1881 to 1958 | 80.3 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | N/A | #44 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (low) | 1920 | 1879 to 1961 | 80.2 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | N/A | #46 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (xhigh) | 1906 | 1869 to 1944 | 80.1 | $0.028 | 0.5 min | N/A | #48 |
| GPT-6.1 Terra (medium) | 1898 | 1852 to 1942 | 79.9 | $0.027 | 0.5 min | N/A | #49 |
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. The 95% ranges describe individual configurations; overlap alone establishes neither a tie nor an order for a pair.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Kimi K3 (max) leads GPT-6.1 Terra (max) by 234 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2119 to 2197 against 1884 to 1959), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Kimi K3 (high) at Elo 1948 and $0.128 per script leads GPT-6.1 Terra (low) at Elo 1920 and $0.027 per script by 28 Elo. Their 95% ranges 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 max. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Cheapest Kimi K3 Configuration Above GPT-6.1 Terra's Best. The cheapest Kimi K3 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-6.1 Terra (max), at Elo 1923 and $0.079 per script, is Kimi K3 (high), at Elo 1948 and $0.128 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap. It costs about 1.6 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Kimi K3 moves +209 Elo from high to max, at about 2.8 times the cost per script. GPT-6.1 Terra moves +3 Elo from low to max, at about 2.9 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Kimi K3 | GPT-6.1 Terra | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1948 | 1922 | +26 | Overlap |
| max | 2157 | 1923 | +234 | Separate |
Gap is Kimi K3 minus GPT-6.1 Terra 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 GPT-6.1 Terra (max) on three, with one tie. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put Kimi K3 (max) ahead, with a 4.7-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Kimi K3 (max) | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.68 |
| Lowest script score | 80.0 Script 10 | 77.9 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 83.2 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 3.8 | 5.3 |
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 GPT-6.1 Terra (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3 (max) | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.4 | 80.2 | +1.2 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.6 | 80.7 | +1.9 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.8 | 80.4 | +1.4 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 79.6 | +0.5 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 80.1 | +3.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.2 | 82.2 | +1.0 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.6 | 79.9 | +3.7 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.3 | 79.1 | +3.2 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 83.2 | +0.6 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.0 | 77.9 | +2.1 |
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