Nemotron 3 Super 120B ranks #72 of 87 models on the November 2026 ToneBench board, and Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium) is its best configuration, #133 of 151 configurations, with a Writing Score of 62.0/100 and a Writing Elo of 579. One script costs $0.0032 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 ?
#72 of 87 modelsits best configuration is #133 of 151 configurations
Writing Score ?
62.0 out of 100
Writing Elo ?
579 95% range 537 to 615
Cost per Script
$0.0032 at API list price
Key Results
StandingNemotron 3 Super 120B ranks #72 of 87 models, and this is its best configuration. As a configuration, it is #133 of 151 configurations by Writing Elo (579), in the bottom third of the board. Its 95% range (537 to 615) overlaps 10 other configurations, ranked #130 to #140.
MetricsBest-ranked: Length Adherence (61.6, 127th of 151 configurations, -23.1 against the board median). Lowest-ranked: Tone & Voice Match (53.7, 137th of 151 configurations, -20.4 against the board median).
ScriptsFrom 57.8 on Scripts 5 and 7 (news-analysis and personal technical walkthrough) to 67.9 on Script 6 (founder announcement): a 10.1-point spread across the 10 reference scripts.
ConsistencyIts Writing Score moves ± 3.7 between drafts of the same script, against ± 2.5 for the median configuration: more variable than most.
ValueGPT-6 Luna (medium) ranks far higher and costs about $0.0026 per script, against $0.0032 per script for this one.
Louis's PickOf the two Nemotron 3 Super 120B settings, this is the one I'd use. If you're not tied to Nemotron 3 Super 120B, GPT-6 Luna (high) 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).
Tone & Voice Match ranks in the bottom half (137th of 151 configurations), so budget time for a voice pass.
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 9 configurations that cost at least 50% more.
Among open-weight models, Nemotron 3 Super 120B is 23rd of 34. As a configuration, it is 30th 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
NVIDIA 2nd of 2 modelsthis setting 2nd of 3 configurations
Weights
Open 23rd of 34 modelsthis setting 30th of 43 configurations
Consistency
± 3.7 more variable than most
Average Tokens
18.7k input + output
Time per Script
1.5 min average, retries included
Highest-Ranked in This LabNemotron 3 Ultra 550B (high) ranks highest of the NVIDIA configurations by Writing Elo, with a Writing Score +4.7 against this configuration, for about 1 cent more per script.
Nemotron 3 Super 120B is also on the board at other effort settings, and none of them rank above this one. The thinking-level page for Nemotron 3 Super 120B charts how quality, cost and time change with the setting.
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.
Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium)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 · -20.4 vs median
board best 82.8 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)53.7± 3.6 · 137thboard median 74.0
Writing Craft & Clarity ?13% weight · -13.4 vs median
board best 83.2 · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)61.6± 2.9 · 136thboard median 75.0
Substance, Accuracy & Value ?15% weight · -15.6 vs median
board best 88.4 · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)66.3± 3.9 · 135thboard median 81.8
Continuity & Emotion ?14% weight · -15.7 vs median
board best 85.7 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)61.9± 2.9 · 136thboard median 77.5
YouTube Best Practices ?12% weight · -14.8 vs median
board best 84.5 · Claude Fable 5.2 (max effort)61.5± 2.9 · 131stboard median 76.4
Hook Strength ?10% weight · -7.4 vs median
board best 84.0 · Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)72.2± 4.3 · 133rdboard median 79.6
Length Adherence ?8% weight · -23.1 vs median
board best 99.0 · Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)61.6± 12.1 · 127thboard median 84.8
Slop Score ?5% weight · -15.5 vs median
board best 89.0 · GPT-6 Sol (medium)65.8± 4.5 · 135thboard median 81.3
Visual Cue Quality ?4% weight · -16.4 vs median
board best 85.9 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)58.4± 8.4 · 129thboard 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
63.0
out of 100
130th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.2
Script 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
64.5
out of 100
136th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 78.4
Script 3
personal roadmap / opinion
60.9
out of 100
132nd of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.2
Script 4
short explainer
61.5
out of 100
128th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 75.7
Script 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
57.8
out of 100
141st of 151 configurations on this script · board median 78.0
Script 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
67.9
out of 100
133rd of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.2
Script 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
57.8
out of 100
137th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.9
Script 8
product release announcement / personal observation
64.7
out of 100
138th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.0
Script 9
career guide / hiring analysis
60.2
out of 100
138th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.3
Script 10
engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation
61.4
out of 100
128th 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 varies most on Visual Cue Quality: ± 8.4 between drafts against ± 2.9, so two drafts of the same script can score quite differently there.
Consistency by Metric
Metric
This model
Board median
Verdict
Tone & Voice Match ?
53.7 ± 3.6
± 1.9
more variable than most
Writing Craft & Clarity ?
61.6 ± 2.9
± 1.5
more variable than most
Substance, Accuracy & Value ?
66.3 ± 3.9
± 2.1
more variable than most
Continuity & Emotion ?
61.9 ± 2.9
± 1.5
more variable than most
YouTube Best Practices ?
61.5 ± 2.9
± 2.4
typical
Hook Strength ?
72.2 ± 4.3
± 2.7
more variable than most
Length Adherence ?
61.6 ± 12.1
± 6.6
more variable than most
Slop Score ?
65.8 ± 4.5
± 1.6
more variable than most
Visual Cue Quality ?
58.4 ± 8.4
± 2.9
more variable than most
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
1.5 minclose to the board median of 1.5 min
Prompt tokens in
13.7kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens Out
5.0kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per Script
$0.0032measured from actual billed tokens; varies ± 0.002 between drafts
List Price Used
$0.085 / $0.4input / 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 62.0 combines their scores with the parts computed in code (Length Adherence and half of the Slop Score). The highest and lowest judge are 21.5 points apart on its Writing Score. That is wider than the board median of 13.4: GLM 5.3 Flash rates it noticeably higher than Claude Opus 5.5 (medium), so the Writing Score sits between two different opinions. 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
51.0
-17.7 against its board average of 68.7
GLM 5.3 Flash
Z.ai
72.5
-10.4 against its board average of 82.9
GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
59.7
-12.2 against its board average of 71.9
Jev 1.13
TypeSafe
64.7
-9.3 against its board average of 74.0
Evaluation Setup
How this exact configuration was run and judged: route, model ID, dates, sampling and prompt.
Exact model / route idnvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b (the request sets no level; the provider applies medium).
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 Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium) at Writing?
Nemotron 3 Super 120B ranks #72 of 87 models on ToneBench, and this is its best configuration. This configuration is #133 of 151 configurations, in the bottom third of the board, with a Writing Elo of 579 and a Writing Score of 62.0/100. 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 Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium) the Best NVIDIA Model for Writing?
No. Nemotron 3 Super 120B is last of 2 NVIDIA models. The top one is Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B, through Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B (high), about 274 Elo ahead of this setting.
Is Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium) Good Value for the Money?
It costs about $0.0032 per script. GPT-6 Luna (medium) ranks higher and costs less.
What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium)?
Its best-ranked metric is Length Adherence (61.6, 127th of 151 configurations, -23.1 against the board median), and its lowest-ranked is Tone & Voice Match (53.7, 137th of 151, -20.4). Its best-ranked metric still sits in the bottom half. The Scores by Metric section shows the board median and the board's best for each one.
How Was Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium) Evaluated?
It was run through OpenRouter, with the exact model/route ID nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b, 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 Nemotron 3 Super 120B (medium) 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 30th of 43 for writing.