Towards AITowards AIToneBench

GPT-6 Astra (default)

OpenAI · proprietary · writing benchmark

#41 of 146 Elo 1848 Overall 84.6 Proprietary
Rank
#41 of 146
Writing Elo
1848 ±37
Overall
84.6 / 100
Cost / task
$0.238 per script
Family
OpenAI 15th of 38
Type
Closed 36th of 96
Consistency
± 2.1 steadier than most
Avg tokens
13.8k in+out
Latency
85s per call
Family check:GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) is OpenAI's best writer here, +3.3 overall vs this config for $0.094 less per script.

The short version

GPT-6 Astra (default) sits at #41 of 146 on ToneBench, in the middle of the pack, with a writing Elo of 1848 and an overall score of 84.6 out of 100. We measured it by having it write all 10 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 15th of 38. GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) is the family's top writer here, about 307 Elo ahead, so this config trades some quality for whatever it saves you in cost or speed.

Among proprietary models, it comes in 36th of 96. 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 Anti-Slop: it ranks 3rd on that dimension at 93.9, well above the board average. Its softer spot is Hook (84.1, 78th), which is the thing to watch if that metric matters most for your use.

It was uneven across the 10 scripts. Its best run was the personal roadmap / opinion (87.6) and its weakest was the news-analysis / opinion explainer (81.7), a spread of about 6 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.238/task. GLM-5.3 Flash scores higher for less money, at $0.007/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: Length Discipline (+15.2); smallest edge: Hook (+1.9).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
GPT-6 Astra (default)Board 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 146 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 · +4.2 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 89.482.7± 1.8 · 68thboard avg · 78.5
Writing Craft ?13% weight · +4.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.684.9± 1.6 · 53rdboard avg · 80.0
Substance & Value ?15% weight · +7.1 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5.1 (adaptive default) · 89.286.3± 1.5 · 39thboard avg · 79.2
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · +6.8 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5.1 (adaptive default) · 88.682.8± 1.7 · 44thboard avg · 76.0
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · +8.8 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 89.084.3± 1.5 · 36thboard avg · 75.5
Hook ?10% weight · +1.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) · 90.584.1± 2.0 · 78thboard avg · 82.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · +15.2 vs avg
best · GPT-6 Astra (max) · 95.283.7± 2.0 · 49thboard avg · 68.6
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · +10.4 vs avg
best · GPT-6 Astra (max) · 94.393.9± 1.3 · 3rdboard avg · 83.5
Visual Cues ?4% weight · +11.0 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 88.585.7± 1.6 · 18thboard avg · 74.7

Per-article scores

The same 10 real scripts every current-ranked model writes, scored individually. Different formats stress different skills.

Article 1
opinion / warning explainer
84.7
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
84.9
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
87.6
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
86.3
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
81.7
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
85.6
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
83.6
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
82.9
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
86.1
out of 100
Article 10
engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation
82.8
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-6 Astra (default) varies by ± 2.1 points between runs versus a board median of ± 3.1, so it is noticeably steadier than the typical model here.

Its steadiest is YouTube Structure (± 1.5 vs ± 3.4 board median), which you can rely on run after run.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?82.7 ± 1.8± 2.0typical
Writing Craft ?84.9 ± 1.6± 1.9typical
Substance & Value ?86.3 ± 1.5± 2.3typical
Flow & Emotion ?82.8 ± 1.7± 2.3typical
YouTube Structure ?84.3 ± 1.5± 3.4steadier than most
Hook ?84.1 ± 2.0± 2.4typical
Length Discipline ?83.7 ± 2.0± 9.4steadier than most
Anti-Slop ?93.9 ± 1.3± 2.2typical
Visual Cues ?85.7 ± 1.6± 4.2steadier than most

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
85s
Prompt tokens in
11.3kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
2.5kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.238 ± 0.065measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$10 / $50 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 84.6 is the consensus of three family-disjoint judges scoring the same 50 stored drafts blind with the identical rubric. The highest and lowest judge differ by 10.3 points on its overall. A typical amount of judge disagreement for this board. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
82.0
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
91.1
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
80.8

How we ran GPT-6 Astra (default)

Frequently asked questions

How good is GPT-6 Astra (default) at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #41 of 146 with a writing Elo of 1848 and an overall score of 84.6/100. That score comes from writing our 10 real YouTube scripts five times each and scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions across nine writing dimensions.

Is GPT-6 Astra (default) the best OpenAI model for writing?

Not quite. Within OpenAI it ranks 15th of 38; GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) is the family's best writer here.

Is GPT-6 Astra (default) good value for the money?

It costs about $0.238/task. GLM-5.3 Flash scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are GPT-6 Astra (default)'s strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Anti-Slop (3rd on the board, 93.9). Its weakest is Hook (78th on the board, 84.1). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does GPT-6 Astra (default) write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 10 scripts was the personal roadmap / opinion (87.6) and its weakest was the news-analysis / opinion explainer (81.7).

How consistent is GPT-6 Astra (default) between runs?

We run every script 5 times. GPT-6 Astra (default)'s overall score varies by about ±2.1 points between runs, versus a board median of ±3.1. That makes it one of the steadier models we test. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.

How was GPT-6 Astra (default) evaluated?

Via Codex CLI (OpenAI subscription) using the exact model/route id gpt-6-astra, run on 2026-09-04. 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-6 Astra (default) open source?

No, it is a proprietary (closed-weights) model. Among proprietary models it ranks 36th of 96 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard