Model Scorecard
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)
DeepSeek · open weights
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash ranks #16 of 83 models on the October 2026 ToneBench board, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is its best configuration, #32 of 136 configurations, with a Writing Score of 81.0/100 and a Writing Elo of 2012. One script costs $0.017 at API list price.
Last updated , from board data generated at 22:06 UTC.
Rank, scores, the nine metrics, the 10 reference scripts, cost and setup for one configuration (a model at one reasoning setting). Key Results sums it up; the section links below it jump to the detail.
Key Results
- StandingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash ranks #16 of 83 models, and this is its best configuration. As a configuration, it is #32 of 136 configurations by Writing Elo (2012), in the upper third of the board. Its 95% range (1971 to 2052) overlaps 19 other configurations, ranked #25 to #44, so its exact place among them is not settled.
- MetricsBest-ranked: Length Adherence (95.9, 13th of 136 configurations, +12.5 against the board median). Lowest-ranked: Hook Strength (80.1, 58th of 136 configurations, +0.8 against the board median).
- ScriptsFrom 79.7 on Script 10 (engineering process walkthrough) to 82.4 on Script 7 (personal technical walkthrough): a 2.7-point spread across the 10 reference scripts.
- ConsistencyIts Writing Score moves ± 1.3 between drafts of the same script, against ± 2.7 for the median configuration: steadier than most.
- ValueDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) ranks about the same (their Elo ranges overlap) and costs about $0.0095 per script, against $0.017 per script for this one.
Louis's PickThis is the strongest DeepSeek V4.1 Flash setting, but DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (high) ranks about the same for under a cent less per script, so I'd start there.
More Context Behind These Results
Writing Elo comes from comparing its average on each script with every other configuration's average on that same script; a gap smaller than the draft-to-draft variation counts as a draw (what the ranges can and cannot show).
On Length Adherence, its best-ranked metric, its drafts land near the target length, so they need less trimming or padding. Even its lowest-ranked metric, Hook Strength, ranks in the top half of the board, so no metric stands out as a weak spot.
Its drafts vary little, so the first draft is usually close to the next one.
It outranks 64 configurations that cost at least 50% more.
Among open-weight models, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is 5th of 34. As a configuration, it is 6th of 43 open-weight configurations. The best open-weight configuration is GLM-5.3 (max), at configuration #17, and every configuration above it is proprietary.
All Settings of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is also on the board at other effort settings, and none of them rank above this one. The thinking-level page for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash charts how quality, cost and time change with the setting.
| Setting | Configuration Rank | Writing Score | Writing Elo | Cost / Script | Time / Script |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| max this page | #32 | 81.0 | 2012 | $0.017 | 2.4 min |
| high | #42 | 80.3 | 1938 | $0.012 | 1.1 min |
| low | #49 | 79.3 | 1839 | $0.0077 | 0.7 min |
| no thinking | #65 | 76.8 | 1626 | $0.0037 | 0.3 min |
Skill Profile Across the Nine Metrics
Each corner is one metric on a 0 to 100 scale; the further out, the higher the score. A corner outside the dashed line beats the board median. Hover or tap a point for its exact score, and a metric name for what it rewards.
Scores by Metric
Nine metrics, each scored 0 to 100 and weighted into the Writing Score; the weight sits under each name. Rank is out of all 136 ranked configurations.
Scores by Reference Script
Every ranked configuration writes five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, and each score is the mean of those drafts. The rank and board median compare it with every configuration on that script, which separates a weak result from a hard script. The result on the format closest to your own work is the most relevant.
Consistency Between Drafts
Every score on this page is the mean of 5 drafts per script. The ± is the standard deviation between those drafts: the larger it is, the more two drafts of the same script can differ.
Compared with the typical model, it's steadiest on Length Adherence: ± 3.0 between drafts against ± 7.0.
Consistency by Metric
| Metric | This model | Board median | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tone & Voice Match ? | 78.1 ± 1.5 | ± 2.0 | typical |
| Writing Craft & Clarity ? | 78.0 ± 1.1 | ± 1.6 | typical |
| Substance, Accuracy & Value ? | 82.5 ± 1.9 | ± 2.3 | typical |
| Continuity & Emotion ? | 80.1 ± 1.3 | ± 1.5 | typical |
| YouTube Best Practices ? | 79.8 ± 2.4 | ± 2.5 | typical |
| Hook Strength ? | 80.1 ± 3.3 | ± 2.8 | typical |
| Length Adherence ? | 95.9 ± 3.0 | ± 7.0 | steadier than most |
| Slop Score ? | 83.2 ± 1.5 | ± 1.6 | typical |
| Visual Cue Quality ? | 76.0 ± 3.6 | ± 3.0 | typical |
Cost, Time and Tokens per Script
Logged on every run; none of these figures affects the Writing Score. Time is the average time to one accepted script, retries included. Cost is one script at the API list price.
Scores by Judge
Four judges score the same 50 stored drafts blind against the same rubric: three LLM judges from three labs, plus Jev, a typed judge from TypeSafe that rates each metric on five described quality levels. No single judge's taste decides the result. The Writing Score of 81.0 combines their scores with the parts computed in code (Length Adherence and half of the Slop Score). The highest and lowest judge are 11.8 points apart on its Writing Score. That is close to the board median of 13.7. Each judge also has its own scale, so every card shows that judge's score against its average across the board. How the panel works.
Evaluation Setup
How this exact configuration was run and judged: route, model ID, dates, sampling and prompt.
- Accessed viaOpenRouter · model page ↗.
- Exact model / route id
deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flashatreasoning level: max. - Generations5 independent runs × 10 scripts = 50 drafts, stored after generation and never edited.
- Run dates2026-10-08.
- JudgesClaude 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 from TypeSafe. One call per judge per draft. All four score every draft on their own, blind to which model wrote it. The three LLM judges use the identical rubric and have to quote evidence before they score a metric. Jev answers the same rubric as one question per metric, choosing among five described quality levels, and writes no text. Seven metrics are the plain average of the four judges. Length is computed from the spoken word count, and Slop is half computed (lexical scans minus the spoken-dash penalty) and half judged. The Writing Elo is cross-checked with a Bradley-Terry fit of the same pairwise results (methodology).
- Sampling and promptThe provider's default sampling, with no fine-tuning and no system-prompt changes. Every current-ranked model gets the same prompt, about 13,000 tokens (the count shifts a bit with each model's tokenizer): a style guide built from Louis's voice and storytelling guides, the target length, and the brief with its research packet. Generation is closed-book on every route: the prompt is the only source, with no web search, browsing, code execution, file access or other tool (generation).
- What stays privateThe exact rubric and any non-public reference material. Each script is normally benchmarked before its video is published, which lowers the odds that a model has seen the reference, though it does not rule it out (why).
Frequently Asked Questions
How Good Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at Writing?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash ranks #16 of 83 models on ToneBench, and this is its best configuration. This configuration is #32 of 136 configurations, in the upper third of the board, with a Writing Elo of 2012 and a Writing Score of 81.0/100. The ranks come from full YouTube scripts written in the voice of Louis-François Bouchard and judged blind, with the channel's finished script as the reference. The benchmark measures long-form scripted writing, so the result does not carry over to every kind of text.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) the Best DeepSeek Model for Writing?
Not quite. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is 2nd of 5 DeepSeek models. The top one is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, through DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), about 72 Elo ahead of this setting, inside the overlap of their Elo ranges.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) Good Value for the Money?
It costs about $0.017 per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) ranks about the same, inside the overlap of their Elo ranges, and costs less.
What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)?
Its best-ranked metric is Length Adherence (95.9, 13th of 136 configurations, +12.5 against the board median), and its lowest-ranked is Hook Strength (80.1, 58th of 136, +0.8). Even that one ranks in the top half of the board. The Scores by Metric section shows the board median and the board's best for each one.
How Was DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) Evaluated?
It was run through OpenRouter, with the exact model/route ID deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash at reasoning effort max, first run on 2026-10-08. It wrote each script 5 times with the provider's default sampling and no fine-tuning. The Evaluation Setup section and the methodology page have the details.
Does DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) Have Open Weights?
Yes. Its weights are public, so it can be downloaded and run on your own hardware. Check the license if you need open source in the strict sense. Among open-weight configurations it is 6th of 43 for writing.