Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B

NVIDIA · open weights · writing benchmark

#79 of 130 Elo 1394 Overall 76.8 Open weights
Rank
#79 of 130
Writing Elo
1394 ±63
Overall
76.8 / 100
Cost / task
$0.011 (estimated) per script
Family
NVIDIA 1st of 4
Type
Open 19th of 47
Consistency
± 4.7 typical spread
Avg tokens
13.8k in+out
Latency
35s per call

The short version

Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B sits at #79 of 130 on ToneBench, toward the value end of the board, with a writing Elo of 1394 and an overall score of 76.8 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.

Inside NVIDIA, this is the strongest writer we tested. It edges out the other 3 NVIDIA configs on the board, so if you're staying in this family for voice work, this is the one to reach for.

Among open-weights models, it comes in 19th 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 Visual Cues: it ranks 66th on that dimension at 81.4, well above the board average. Its softer spot is Anti-Slop (74.3, 102nd), 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 short explainer (80.4) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (71.2), a spread of about 9 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.011/task (estimated). 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 15 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: Visual Cues (+6.8); furthest behind: Anti-Slop (-8.5).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
Nemotron 3 Ultra 550BBoard 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 · +0.7 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.279.0± 3.1 · 77thboard avg · 78.3
Writing Craft ?13% weight · -2.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.176.3± 5.5 · 97thboard avg · 78.9
Substance & Value ?15% weight · +0.3 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.679.0± 3.7 · 78thboard avg · 78.7
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · +0.1 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.474.5± 4.3 · 82ndboard avg · 74.4
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · +0.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.673.9± 4.5 · 81stboard avg · 73.3
Hook ?10% weight · +3.2 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 92.083.4± 6.2 · 70thboard avg · 80.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · +0.3 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 94.367.5± 10.5 · 72ndboard avg · 67.2
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · -8.5 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 93.774.3± 4.4 · 102ndboard avg · 82.8
Visual Cues ?4% weight · +6.8 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) · 91.481.4± 6.0 · 66thboard 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
78.9
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
74.3
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
80.4
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
78.7
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
79.2
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
71.2
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
79.5
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
72.9
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 Ultra 550B 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 most volatile dimension is Writing Craft (± 5.5 vs a board median of ± 2.0): two runs of the same brief can land visibly different writing craft scores.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?79.0 ± 3.1± 2.2typical
Writing Craft ?76.3 ± 5.5± 2.0swingier than most
Substance & Value ?79.0 ± 3.7± 2.6typical
Flow & Emotion ?74.5 ± 4.3± 2.6swingier than most
YouTube Structure ?73.9 ± 4.5± 3.6typical
Hook ?83.4 ± 6.2± 3.0swingier than most
Length Discipline ?67.5 ± 10.5± 8.6typical
Anti-Slop ?74.3 ± 4.4± 2.6swingier than most
Visual Cues ?81.4 ± 6.0± 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
35sfaster than the board median of 70s
Prompt tokens in
11.1kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
2.7kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.011 ± 0.002measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$0.5 / $2.2 per M tokinput / output (estimated)

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 76.8 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 13.9 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
68.6
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
79.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
82.5

How we ran Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B

Frequently asked questions

How good is Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #79 of 130 with a writing Elo of 1394 and an overall score of 76.8/100. 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 Ultra 550B the best NVIDIA model for writing?

Yes. Among the NVIDIA configs we tested, Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B is the strongest writer on the board.

Is Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B good value for the money?

It costs about $0.011/task (estimated). DeepSeek V4 Flash (native chat alias) scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B's strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Visual Cues (66th on the board, 81.4). Its weakest is Anti-Slop (102nd on the board, 74.3). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 9 scripts was the short explainer (80.4) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (71.2).

How consistent is Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B between runs?

We run every script 5 times. Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B'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 Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B evaluated?

Via OpenRouter using the exact model/route id nvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b, 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 Ultra 550B open source?

Yes, it is an open-weights model. Among open-weights models it ranks 19th of 47 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard