Towards AITowards AIToneBench

ds DeepSeek V3.2

DeepSeek · open weights · writing benchmark

#77 of 130 Elo 1410 Overall 77.2 Open weights
Rank
#77 of 130
Writing Elo
1410 ±46
Overall
77.2 / 100
Cost / task
$0.004 per script
Family
DeepSeek 7th of 8
Type
Open 18th of 47
Consistency
± 4.7 typical spread
Avg tokens
12.8k in+out
Latency
52s per call
Family check:DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is DeepSeek's best writer here, +7.0 overall vs this config for $0.001 more per script.

The short version

DeepSeek V3.2 sits at #77 of 130 on ToneBench, toward the value end of the board, with a writing Elo of 1410 and an overall score of 77.2 out of 100. We measured it by having it write all 9 of our real YouTube scripts, five times each, then scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions. Here is how it shook out.

Within DeepSeek it ranks 7th of 8. DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is the family's top writer here, about 545 Elo ahead, so this config trades some quality for whatever it saves you in cost or speed.

Among open-weights models, it comes in 18th of 47. Open weights still trail the closed frontier on pure voice fidelity, and you can see that in the gap at the top.

What it does best is Writing Craft: it ranks 67th on that dimension at 81.0, above the board average. Its softer spot is Anti-Slop (77.2, 98th), which is the thing to watch if that metric matters most for your use.

It was uneven across the 9 scripts. Its best run was the founder announcement / personal origin story (84.0) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (68.5), a spread of about 16 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.004/task. DeepSeek V4 Flash (native chat alias) scores higher for less money, at $0.002/task, so on pure value this config is not the frontier. Still, it beats 29 models that cost noticeably more.

Skill profile

The shape is the story: the further a corner reaches, the stronger that dimension. Biggest edge over the board: Flow & Emotion (+2.9); furthest behind: Anti-Slop (-5.5).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
DeepSeek V3.2Board averageBoard best per metricMax possible (100)

Per-metric scores

Nine writing dimensions, each scored 0–100 and blended by the editorial weight shown. Rank is against all 130 current-ranked models. The thick bar is this model; the thin lines above and below are the current field's best model (darker) and average (lighter) on the same scale. The small ± number is its run-to-run variation.

Tone & Voice ?19% weight · -0.4 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.277.9± 2.6 · 83rdboard avg · 78.3
Writing Craft ?13% weight · +2.1 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.181.0± 2.3 · 67thboard avg · 78.9
Substance & Value ?15% weight · +1.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.680.3± 2.7 · 70thboard avg · 78.7
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · +2.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.477.3± 2.7 · 67thboard avg · 74.4
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · +0.7 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.674.0± 4.1 · 78thboard avg · 73.3
Hook ?10% weight · +0.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 92.081.0± 4.0 · 87thboard avg · 80.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · -1.9 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 94.365.3± 5.1 · 79thboard avg · 67.2
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · -5.5 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 93.777.2± 3.5 · 98thboard avg · 82.8
Visual Cues ?4% weight · -0.4 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) · 91.474.1± 6.1 · 85thboard avg · 74.5

Per-article scores

The same 9 real scripts every current-ranked model writes, scored individually. Different formats stress different skills.

Article 1
opinion / warning explainer
76.2
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
78.3
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
75.4
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
77.0
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
76.8
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
84.0
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
68.5
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
82.2
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
76.6
out of 100

Consistency: run-to-run variability

Every cell on this page is the mean of 5 independent runs per script; the ± numbers are the run-to-run standard deviation. Overall, DeepSeek V3.2 varies by ± 4.7 points between runs versus a board median of ± 3.8, so it is about as repeatable as the typical model on the board.

Its steadiest is Length Discipline (± 5.1 vs ± 8.6 board median), which you can rely on run after run.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?77.9 ± 2.6± 2.2typical
Writing Craft ?81.0 ± 2.3± 2.0typical
Substance & Value ?80.3 ± 2.7± 2.6typical
Flow & Emotion ?77.3 ± 2.7± 2.6typical
YouTube Structure ?74.0 ± 4.1± 3.6typical
Hook ?81.0 ± 4.0± 3.0typical
Length Discipline ?65.3 ± 5.1± 8.6steadier than most
Anti-Slop ?77.2 ± 3.5± 2.6typical
Visual Cues ?74.1 ± 6.1± 4.7typical

Measured, not modeled

Numbers we log on every run and rarely talk about. None of these affect the writing scores; cost and latency are informational.

Latency per script
52sfaster than the board median of 70s
Prompt tokens in
10.8kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
2.0kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.004 ± 0.000measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$0.27 / $0.41 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 77.2 is the consensus of three family-disjoint judges scoring the same 45 stored drafts blind with the identical rubric. The highest and lowest judge differ by 8.2 points on its overall. A typical amount of judge disagreement for this board. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
71.9
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
80.0
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
79.8

How we ran DeepSeek V3.2

Frequently asked questions

How good is DeepSeek V3.2 at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #77 of 130 with a writing Elo of 1410 and an overall score of 77.2/100. That score comes from writing our 9 real YouTube scripts five times each and scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions across nine writing dimensions.

Is DeepSeek V3.2 the best DeepSeek model for writing?

Not quite. Within DeepSeek it ranks 7th of 8; DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is the family's best writer here.

Is DeepSeek V3.2 good value for the money?

It costs about $0.004/task. DeepSeek V4 Flash (native chat alias) scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are DeepSeek V3.2's strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Writing Craft (67th on the board, 81.0). Its weakest is Anti-Slop (98th on the board, 77.2). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does DeepSeek V3.2 write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 9 scripts was the founder announcement / personal origin story (84.0) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (68.5).

How consistent is DeepSeek V3.2 between runs?

We run every script 5 times. DeepSeek V3.2's overall score varies by about ±4.7 points between runs, versus a board median of ±3.8. That is typical consistency for this board. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.

How was DeepSeek V3.2 evaluated?

Via OpenRouter using the exact model/route id deepseek/deepseek-v3.2-exp, run on 2026-07-29. 5 runs per script, provider-default sampling, no fine-tuning; every draft scored blind with a fixed rubric by a three-family judge panel. Full details in the 'How we ran it' section and the methodology.

Is DeepSeek V3.2 open source?

Yes, it is an open-weights model. Among open-weights models it ranks 18th of 47 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard