Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning)

NVIDIA · open weights · writing benchmark

#105 of 130 Elo 986 Overall 68.7 Open weights
Rank
#105 of 130
Writing Elo
986 ±105
Overall
68.7 / 100
Cost / task
$0.003 per script
Family
NVIDIA 3rd of 4
Type
Open 28th of 47
Consistency
± 8.6 swingier than most
Avg tokens
16.0k in+out
Latency
86s per call
Family check:Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B is NVIDIA's best writer here, +8.1 overall vs this config for $0.009 more per script.

The short version

Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) sits at #105 of 130 on ToneBench, toward the value end of the board, with a writing Elo of 986 and an overall score of 68.7 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 NVIDIA it ranks 3rd of 4. Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B is the family's top writer here, about 408 Elo ahead, so this config trades some quality for whatever it saves you in cost or speed.

Among open-weights models, it comes in 28th of 47. Open weights still trail the closed frontier on pure voice fidelity, and you can see that in the gap at the top.

Worth knowing before you rely on it: this model is swingy. Its overall score moves ± 8.6 points between runs of the same brief, versus a board median of ± 3.8. A great draft and a mediocre one can come from the identical prompt. The shaded bands on the metric bars below show where that volatility lives.

What it does best is Visual Cues: it ranks 90th on that dimension at 69.3, below the board average. Its softer spot is Writing Craft (71.0, 112th), 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 (76.9) and its weakest was the news-analysis / opinion explainer (63.0), a spread of about 14 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.003/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 6 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: Substance & Value (-4.8); furthest behind: Length Discipline (-13.2).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning)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 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 · -8.3 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.270.0± 5.9 · 111thboard avg · 78.3
Writing Craft ?13% weight · -7.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.171.0± 6.1 · 112thboard avg · 78.9
Substance & Value ?15% weight · -4.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.673.9± 5.5 · 103rdboard avg · 78.7
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · -8.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.465.8± 7.0 · 107thboard avg · 74.4
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · -7.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.665.7± 5.7 · 98thboard avg · 73.3
Hook ?10% weight · -6.1 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 92.074.1± 7.0 · 111thboard avg · 80.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · -13.2 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 94.354.0± 12.2 · 100thboard avg · 67.2
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · -12.9 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 93.769.9± 5.5 · 110thboard avg · 82.8
Visual Cues ?4% weight · -5.2 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) · 91.469.3± 7.7 · 90thboard 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
67.7
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
64.7
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
68.1
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
73.7
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
63.0
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
76.9
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
65.4
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
73.2
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
65.7
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, Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) varies by ± 8.6 points between runs versus a board median of ± 3.8, so it is swingier than the typical model here, worth knowing if you need repeatable output.

Its most volatile dimension is Tone & Voice (± 5.9 vs a board median of ± 2.2): two runs of the same brief can land visibly different tone & voice scores.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?70.0 ± 5.9± 2.2swingier than most
Writing Craft ?71.0 ± 6.1± 2.0swingier than most
Substance & Value ?73.9 ± 5.5± 2.6swingier than most
Flow & Emotion ?65.8 ± 7.0± 2.6swingier than most
YouTube Structure ?65.7 ± 5.7± 3.6swingier than most
Hook ?74.1 ± 7.0± 3.0swingier than most
Length Discipline ?54.0 ± 12.2± 8.6typical
Anti-Slop ?69.9 ± 5.5± 2.6swingier than most
Visual Cues ?69.3 ± 7.7± 4.7swingier 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
86s
Prompt tokens in
11.1kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
4.9kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.003 ± 0.002measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$0.085 / $0.4 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 68.7 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 17.6 points on its overall. That gap is wider than typical (board median 9.0): DeepSeek V4 Flash rates it noticeably higher than Claude Opus 5. Read the per-metric numbers knowing the consensus sits between two real opinions. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
59.0
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
70.5
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
76.6

How we ran Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning)

Frequently asked questions

How good is Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #105 of 130 with a writing Elo of 986 and an overall score of 68.7/100. 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 Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) the best NVIDIA model for writing?

Not quite. Within NVIDIA it ranks 3rd of 4; Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B is the family's best writer here.

Is Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) good value for the money?

It costs about $0.003/task. DeepSeek V4 Flash (native chat alias) scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning)'s strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Visual Cues (90th on the board, 69.3). Its weakest is Writing Craft (112th on the board, 71.0). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 9 scripts was the founder announcement / personal origin story (76.9) and its weakest was the news-analysis / opinion explainer (63.0).

How consistent is Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) between runs?

We run every script 5 times. Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning)'s overall score varies by about ±8.6 points between runs, versus a board median of ±3.8. That is swingier than typical, so expect more draft-to-draft variation. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.

How was Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) evaluated?

Via OpenRouter using the exact model/route id nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b at reasoning_effort high, 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 Nemotron 3 Super 120B (reasoning) open source?

Yes, it is an open-weights model. Among open-weights models it ranks 28th of 47 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard