Model Comparison
Muse Wonder vs GPT-6.1 Terra
Overlapping ranges: the best configurations, Muse Wonder (max) and GPT-6.1 Terra (max), are 51 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 84 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Muse Wonder is #17 and GPT-6.1 Terra is #23. Cost per script: $0.309 for Muse Wonder (max) and $0.079 for GPT-6.1 Terra (max).
Last updated , from board data generated at 20:15 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickMuse Wonder
Muse Wonder (max)
Pick Muse Wonder (max) when the flow of the script matters most, since it scores higher than Terra at low on seven of the ten scripts, at $0.309 a script.
PickGPT-6.1 Terra
GPT-6.1 Terra (low)
Pick GPT-6.1 Terra (low) as the default, since its individual Elo range overlaps Muse's best and it costs $0.027 a script in 0.5 minutes.
Muse Wonder at max ranks higher, and its individual Elo range still overlaps GPT-6.1 Terra at its cheapest. Muse Wonder (max) sits 51 Elo above GPT-6.1 Terra (max) and 54 above GPT-6.1 Terra (low), with overlapping 95% ranges each time, the #17 model of 84 against the #23 model. The thinking levels behave very differently. Muse needs max: Muse Wonder (high) falls 347 Elo below it and trails Terra at high by 295 with separate ranges, mostly on Length Adherence, and adaptive drops lower still. Terra's five settings sit within 25 Elo of each other, so low is the one I would run. Muse at max costs $0.309 a script and takes 2.0 minutes. Terra at low costs $0.027 and takes 0.5, about an eleventh of the price. Against Terra at low, Muse leads YouTube structure by 3.0 points and continuity by 2.6, and scores higher on seven of the ten scripts. Terra lands the length 5.5 points better and writes with less filler, 4.0 points up on slop. I'd run Terra at low by default and pay for Muse at max when the flow of a script matters more than the bill.
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 Muse Wonder 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muse Wonder (max) | 1974 | 1932 to 2019 | 80.6 | $0.309 | 2.0 min | 9,601 | #33 |
| 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 |
| Muse Wonder (high) | 1627 | 1554 to 1692 | 76.7 | $0.149 | 0.9 min | 1,385 | #69 |
| Muse Wonder (adaptive) | 1573 | 1520 to 1635 | 76.2 | $0.139 | 0.8 min | 766 | #77 |
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. Muse Wonder (max) at Elo 1974 (range 1932 to 2019) and GPT-6.1 Terra (max) at Elo 1923 (range 1884 to 1959) have overlapping 95% ranges.
- Lowest Thinking Levels Head to Head. At their lowest thinking levels, GPT-6.1 Terra (low) at Elo 1920 and $0.027 per script leads Muse Wonder (high) at Elo 1627 and $0.149 per script by 293 Elo. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. Across the level names both models use, Muse Wonder leads at max; GPT-6.1 Terra leads at high. 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. GPT-6.1 Terra (high), at $0.027 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of Muse Wonder (max), at $0.309 per script: 1881 to 1958 against 1932 to 2019. Muse Wonder (max) costs about 11 times as much per script.
- Cheapest Muse Wonder Configuration Above GPT-6.1 Terra's Best. The cheapest Muse Wonder configuration with a higher Writing Elo than GPT-6.1 Terra (max), at Elo 1923 and $0.079 per script, is Muse Wonder (max), at Elo 1974 and $0.309 per script. Their 95% ranges overlap. It costs about 3.9 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Muse Wonder moves +347 Elo from high to max, at about 2.1 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 | Muse Wonder | GPT-6.1 Terra | Gap | 95% Ranges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | 1627 | 1922 | -295 | Separate |
| max | 1974 | 1923 | +51 | Overlap |
Gap is Muse Wonder 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
Muse Wonder (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and GPT-6.1 Terra (max) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Continuity & Emotion does the most to put Muse Wonder (max) ahead, with a 4.0-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Muse Wonder (max) | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.91 | 1.68 |
| Lowest script score | 78.2 Script 10 | 77.9 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 82.2 Script 5 | 83.2 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 4.0 | 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 Muse Wonder (max) minus GPT-6.1 Terra (max), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Muse Wonder (max) | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.3 | 80.2 | +1.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.7 | 80.7 | +1.0 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.3 | 80.4 | +0.9 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.5 | 79.6 | -0.1 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.2 | 80.1 | +2.1 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.3 | 82.2 | -0.9 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 78.5 | 79.9 | -1.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.1 | 79.1 | +3.0 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 79.9 | 83.2 | -3.3 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 78.2 | 77.9 | +0.3 |
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