Towards AITowards AIToneBench

GPT-5

OpenAI · proprietary · writing benchmark

#82 of 130 Elo 1373 Overall 77.1 Proprietary
Rank
#82 of 130
Writing Elo
1373 ±48
Overall
77.1 / 100
Cost / task
$0.069 per script
Family
OpenAI 28th of 36
Type
Closed 61st of 83
Consistency
± 3.6 typical spread
Avg tokens
16.1k in+out
Latency
95s per call
Family check:GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) is OpenAI's best writer here, +11.3 overall vs this config for $0.067 more per script.

The short version

GPT-5 sits at #82 of 130 on ToneBench, toward the value end of the board, with a writing Elo of 1373 and an overall score of 77.1 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 OpenAI it ranks 28th of 36. GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) is the family's top writer here, about 943 Elo ahead, so this config trades some quality for whatever it saves you in cost or speed.

Among proprietary models, it comes in 61st of 83. That ranking is against the stronger half of the board: closed models still set the pace on voice fidelity here.

What it does best is Visual Cues: it ranks 41st on that dimension at 85.4, well above the board average. Its softer spot is Length Discipline (37.5, 113th), 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 product release announcement / personal observation (82.4) and its weakest was the personal roadmap / opinion (72.5), a spread of about 10 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.069/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.

Skill profile

The shape is the story: the further a corner reaches, the stronger that dimension. Biggest edge over the board: Visual Cues (+10.9); furthest behind: Length Discipline (-29.7).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
GPT-5Board 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 · +4.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.283.1± 2.5 · 58thboard avg · 78.3
Writing Craft ?13% weight · +2.3 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.181.2± 2.2 · 66thboard avg · 78.9
Substance & Value ?15% weight · +0.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.679.5± 2.8 · 76thboard avg · 78.7
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · -3.4 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.471.0± 3.2 · 96thboard avg · 74.4
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · +6.0 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.679.3± 3.5 · 56thboard avg · 73.3
Hook ?10% weight · +5.7 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 92.085.9± 2.6 · 46thboard avg · 80.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · -29.7 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 94.337.5± 10.4 · 113thboard avg · 67.2
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · +4.9 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 93.787.7± 2.6 · 52ndboard avg · 82.8
Visual Cues ?4% weight · +10.9 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) · 91.485.4± 2.9 · 41stboard 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
74.1
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
79.1
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
72.5
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
75.2
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
75.8
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
79.8
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
77.5
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
82.4
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
77.6
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, GPT-5 varies by ± 3.6 points between runs versus a board median of ± 3.8, so it is about as repeatable as the typical model on the board.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?83.1 ± 2.5± 2.2typical
Writing Craft ?81.2 ± 2.2± 2.0typical
Substance & Value ?79.5 ± 2.8± 2.6typical
Flow & Emotion ?71.0 ± 3.2± 2.6typical
YouTube Structure ?79.3 ± 3.5± 3.6typical
Hook ?85.9 ± 2.6± 3.0typical
Length Discipline ?37.5 ± 10.4± 8.6typical
Anti-Slop ?87.7 ± 2.6± 2.6typical
Visual Cues ?85.4 ± 2.9± 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
95sslower than the board median of 70s
Prompt tokens in
10.5kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
5.6kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.069 ± 0.017measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$1.25 / $10 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 77.1 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 11.8 points on its overall. A typical amount of judge disagreement for this board. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
70.2
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
76.7
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
82.0

How we ran GPT-5

Frequently asked questions

How good is GPT-5 at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #82 of 130 with a writing Elo of 1373 and an overall score of 77.1/100. 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 GPT-5 the best OpenAI model for writing?

Not quite. Within OpenAI it ranks 28th of 36; GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) is the family's best writer here.

Is GPT-5 good value for the money?

It costs about $0.069/task. DeepSeek V4 Flash (native chat alias) scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are GPT-5's strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Visual Cues (41st on the board, 85.4). Its weakest is Length Discipline (113th on the board, 37.5). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does GPT-5 write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 9 scripts was the product release announcement / personal observation (82.4) and its weakest was the personal roadmap / opinion (72.5).

How consistent is GPT-5 between runs?

We run every script 5 times. GPT-5's overall score varies by about ±3.6 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 GPT-5 evaluated?

Via OpenAI API using the exact model/route id gpt-5, 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 GPT-5 open source?

No, it is a proprietary (closed-weights) model. Among proprietary models it ranks 61st of 83 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard