Model Comparison
Muse Wonder vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Too close to call: the best configurations, Muse Wonder (max) and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max), are 58 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 80 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Muse Wonder is #16 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is #21. Cost per script: $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max) and $0.077 for DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:08 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
Ranks in the picks and verdict are configuration ranks: each setting's place among all 132 configurations. The cards above give each model's rank.
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) when you're waiting on the draft, since the board can't separate it from DeepSeek's best and it's back in 2.0 minutes against 8.9.
PickDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max)
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) for drafts in volume, since it costs $0.077 a script on open weights and the board can't separate it from Muse's best.
The board can't separate the two best settings here, so this is a trade between price and time. Muse Wonder (max) sits 58 Elo above DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) with overlapping 95% ranges, the #16 model of 80 against the #21 model. DeepSeek costs $0.077 a script, about a quarter of Muse's $0.309, and takes 8.9 minutes where Muse is done in 2.0. Best against best, Muse carries 5.1 more points of substance and a cleaner Slop Score. DeepSeek lands the length 10.9 points better, and its drafts are steadier from one to the next. Neither model is worth running below max. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high) costs $0.031 but drops 616 Elo to #87 on the board, under both of Muse's lower settings with separate ranges. Those two, Muse Wonder (high) and Muse Wonder (adaptive), where the model picks its own level, lose to DeepSeek at max by 283 and 343 Elo, again with separate ranges, at nearly twice its price. DeepSeek's weights are open, Muse's closed. For drafts I'll rework anyway, I'd take DeepSeek at max. When I'm waiting on the script, Muse 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 Muse Wonder 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muse Wonder (max) | 2005 | 1959 to 2044 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #31 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | 1947 | 1904 to 1980 | 80.1 | $0.077 | 8.9 min | 31,573 | #40 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1664 | 1600 to 1724 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #58 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1604 | 1550 to 1661 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #70 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high) | 1331 | 1255 to 1401 | 72.3 | $0.031 | 1.3 min | 8,879 | #87 |
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. Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 2005 (range 1959 to 2044) and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) at Elo 1947 (range 1904 to 1980) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1664 and $0.149 per script leads DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (high) at Elo 1331 and $0.031 per script by 333 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Muse Wonder has the higher Writing Elo at every level name both models use: high and max. The 95% ranges do not overlap at high. 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 Pro 0813 (max), at $0.077 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Muse Wonder (max), at $0.309 per script: 1904 to 1980 against 1959 to 2044, so the board cannot separate them. Muse Wonder (max) costs about 4 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Muse Wonder Configuration Above DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813's Best. The cheapest Muse Wonder configuration with a higher Writing Elo than DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max), at Elo 1947 and $0.077 per script, is Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 2005 and $0.309 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. It costs about 4 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Muse Wonder moves +341 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 times the cost per script. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 moves +616 Elo from high to max, at about 2.5 times the cost per script.
Writing Elo at Each Shared Level Name
| Level | Muse Wonder | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1664 | 1331 | +333 | Separate |
| max | 2005 | 1947 | +58 | Overlap |
Gap is Muse Wonder 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
Muse Wonder (max) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put Muse Wonder (max) ahead, with a 5.1-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Muse Wonder (max) | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.91 | 1.48 |
| Lowest script score | 78.2 Script 10 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 82.2 Script 5 | 81.5 Script 6 |
| Range across scripts | 4.0 | 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 Muse Wonder (max) minus DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Muse Wonder (max) | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.3 | 79.5 | +1.8 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.7 | 80.6 | +1.1 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.3 | 80.8 | +0.5 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.5 | 78.5 | +1.0 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.2 | 80.9 | +1.3 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.3 | 81.5 | -0.2 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 78.5 | 81.1 | -2.6 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.1 | 80.2 | +1.9 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 79.9 | 79.9 | 0.0 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 78.2 | 78.2 | 0.0 |
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