Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Model Scorecard

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high)

DeepSeek · open weights

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 ranks #36 of 87 models on the November 2026 ToneBench board, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high) is its only configuration, #74 of 151 configurations, with a Writing Score of 77.5/100 and a Writing Elo of 1611. One script costs $0.016 at API list price.

Last updated , from board data generated at 17:52 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.

Model Rank ?
#36 of 87 modelsits only configuration is #74 of 151 configurations
Writing Score ?
77.5 out of 100
Writing Elo ?
1611 95% range 1571 to 1650
Cost per Script
$0.016 at API list price

Key Results

Louis's PickI'd pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) over this one: it ranks clearly higher for no more per script.

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. Slop Score ranks in the bottom half (105th of 151 configurations), so expect filler phrases and AI tells to clean out.

The script format moves its score a lot. If most of your scripts look like its best or weakest format, that result is a better guide than the average.

It outranks 46 configurations that cost at least 50% more.

Among open-weight models, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is 8th of 34. As a configuration, it is 12th of 43 open-weight configurations. The best open-weight configuration is GLM-5.3 (max), at configuration #22, and every configuration above it is proprietary.

Lab
DeepSeek 4th of 5 modelsthis setting 7th of 11 configurations
Weights
Open 8th of 34 modelsthis setting 12th of 43 configurations
Consistency
± 2.4 typical spread
Average Tokens
63.7k input + output
Time per Script
12.3 min average, retries included
Highest-Ranked in This LabDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) ranks highest of the DeepSeek configurations by Writing Elo, with a Writing Score +4.1 against this configuration, for under a cent less per script.

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.

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Slop?Cues?
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high)Board medianBoard best per metricMax possible (100)

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 151 ranked configurations.

Score colors:Strong: 82 and upMiddle: 65 to 81.9Weak: under 65
This modelBoard best (upper line)Board median (lower line)±: spread between drafts?: what the metric rewards
Tone & Voice Match ?19% weight · -1.3 vs median
board best 82.8 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)72.8± 2.0 · 88thboard median 74.0
Writing Craft & Clarity ?13% weight · -3.6 vs median
board best 83.2 · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)71.4± 2.1 · 100thboard median 75.0
Substance, Accuracy & Value ?15% weight · -1.4 vs median
board best 88.4 · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)80.4± 2.1 · 87thboard median 81.8
Continuity & Emotion ?14% weight · -1.6 vs median
board best 85.7 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)76.0± 2.0 · 91stboard median 77.5
YouTube Best Practices ?12% weight · -0.5 vs median
board best 84.5 · Claude Fable 5.2 (max effort)75.8± 2.2 · 81stboard median 76.4
Hook Strength ?10% weight · +0.9 vs median
board best 84.0 · Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)80.5± 1.8 · 61stboard median 79.6
Length Adherence ?8% weight · +11.1 vs median
board best 99.0 · Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)95.8± 3.3 · 18thboard median 84.8
Slop Score ?5% weight · -3.1 vs median
board best 89.0 · GPT-6 Sol (medium)78.2± 2.0 · 105thboard median 81.3
Visual Cue Quality ?4% weight · -1.2 vs median
board best 85.9 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)73.6± 2.9 · 89thboard median 74.8

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.

Script 1
opinion / warning explainer
75.5
out of 100
91st of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.2
Script 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
77.2
out of 100
87th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 78.4
Script 3
personal roadmap / opinion
77.1
out of 100
79th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.2
Script 4
short explainer
73.4
out of 100
87th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 75.7
Script 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
79.5
out of 100
58th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 78.0
Script 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
79.0
out of 100
78th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.2
Script 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
77.7
out of 100
77th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.9
Script 8
product release announcement / personal observation
80.2
out of 100
56th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.0
Script 9
career guide / hiring analysis
79.1
out of 100
79th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.3
Script 10
engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation
75.9
out of 100
66th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 75.0

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: ± 3.3 between drafts against ± 6.6.

Consistency by Metric
MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice Match ?72.8 ± 2.0± 1.9typical
Writing Craft & Clarity ?71.4 ± 2.1± 1.5typical
Substance, Accuracy & Value ?80.4 ± 2.1± 2.1typical
Continuity & Emotion ?76.0 ± 2.0± 1.5typical
YouTube Best Practices ?75.8 ± 2.2± 2.4typical
Hook Strength ?80.5 ± 1.8± 2.7typical
Length Adherence ?95.8 ± 3.3± 6.6steadier than most
Slop Score ?78.2 ± 2.0± 1.6typical
Visual Cue Quality ?73.6 ± 2.9± 2.9typical

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.

Time per Script
12.3 minabout 8x the board median of 1.5 min
Prompt tokens in
13.5kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens Out
50.2kwell above the board median, so a lot of thinking
Cost per Script
$0.016measured from actual billed tokens; varies ± 0.005 between drafts
List Price Used
$0.14 / $0.28input / output, per million tokens

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 77.5 combines their scores with the parts computed in code (Length Adherence and half of the Slop Score). The highest and lowest judge are 16.1 points apart on its Writing Score. That is close to the board median of 13.4. 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.

Claude Opus 5.5 (medium)
Anthropic
71.0
+2.3 against its board average of 68.7
GLM 5.3 Flash
Z.ai
87.1
+4.2 against its board average of 82.9
GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
73.6
+1.7 against its board average of 71.9
Jev 1.13
TypeSafe
78.2
+4.2 against its board average of 74.0

Evaluation Setup

How this exact configuration was run and judged: route, model ID, dates, sampling and prompt.

Frequently Asked Questions

How Good Is DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high) at Writing?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 ranks #36 of 87 models on ToneBench, and this is its only configuration on the board. This configuration is #74 of 151 configurations, in the middle third of the board, with a Writing Elo of 1611 and a Writing Score of 77.5/100. 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 Flash 0731 (high) the Best DeepSeek Model for Writing?

No. DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is 4th of 5 DeepSeek models. The top one is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, through DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max), about 413 Elo ahead of this setting.

Is DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high) Good Value for the Money?

It costs about $0.016 per script. GPT-6 Luna (max) ranks higher with an overlapping Elo range and costs less.

What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high)?

Its best-ranked metric is Length Adherence (95.8, 18th of 151 configurations, +11.1 against the board median), and its lowest-ranked is Slop Score (78.2, 105th of 151, -3.1). The Scores by Metric section shows the board median and the board's best for each one.

How Was DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (high) Evaluated?

It was run through OpenRouter, with the exact model/route ID deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731, 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 Flash 0731 (high) 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 12th of 43 for writing.

← All models   ← Leaderboard