Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Qwen3-Max

Alibaba (Qwen) · proprietary · writing benchmark

#91 of 130 Elo 1224 Overall 74.5 Proprietary
Rank
#91 of 130
Writing Elo
1224 ±44
Overall
74.5 / 100
Cost / task
$0.017 per script
Family
Alibaba (Qwen) 4th of 10
Type
Closed 67th of 83
Consistency
± 3.8 typical spread
Avg tokens
13.0k in+out
Latency
36s per call
Family check:Qwen3.8 Max is Alibaba (Qwen)'s best writer here, +9.0 overall vs this config for $0.133 more per script.

The short version

Qwen3-Max sits at #91 of 130 on ToneBench, toward the value end of the board, with a writing Elo of 1224 and an overall score of 74.5 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 Alibaba (Qwen) it ranks 4th of 10. Qwen3.8 Max is the family's top writer here, about 642 Elo ahead, so this config trades some quality for whatever it saves you in cost or speed.

Among proprietary models, it comes in 67th 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 Length Discipline: it ranks 68th on that dimension at 71.0, above the board average. Its softer spot is Anti-Slop (67.4, 118th), 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 (80.8) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (69.8), a spread of about 11 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.017/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 7 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: Length Discipline (+3.9); furthest behind: Anti-Slop (-15.3).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
Qwen3-MaxBoard 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 · +0.1 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.278.5± 2.4 · 81stboard avg · 78.3
Writing Craft ?13% weight · -0.2 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 91.178.7± 2.2 · 83rdboard avg · 78.9
Substance & Value ?15% weight · -6.5 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.672.2± 4.7 · 106thboard avg · 78.7
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · -0.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 90.473.8± 3.2 · 85thboard avg · 74.4
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · -5.3 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 89.668.0± 5.2 · 95thboard avg · 73.3
Hook ?10% weight · +1.6 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 92.081.8± 3.5 · 80thboard avg · 80.2
Length Discipline ?8% weight · +3.9 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 94.371.0± 5.2 · 68thboard avg · 67.2
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · -15.3 vs avg
best · Claude Fable 5 (max effort + 4.8 fallback) · 93.767.4± 2.3 · 118thboard avg · 82.8
Visual Cues ?4% weight · -5.9 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) · 91.468.7± 6.8 · 92ndboard 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
74.2
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
75.6
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
74.2
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
73.5
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
71.2
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
80.8
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
69.8
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
76.5
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
74.4
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, Qwen3-Max varies by ± 3.8 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 Substance & Value (± 4.7 vs a board median of ± 2.6): two runs of the same brief can land visibly different substance & value scores.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?78.5 ± 2.4± 2.2typical
Writing Craft ?78.7 ± 2.2± 2.0typical
Substance & Value ?72.2 ± 4.7± 2.6swingier than most
Flow & Emotion ?73.8 ± 3.2± 2.6typical
YouTube Structure ?68.0 ± 5.2± 3.6typical
Hook ?81.8 ± 3.5± 3.0typical
Length Discipline ?71.0 ± 5.2± 8.6typical
Anti-Slop ?67.4 ± 2.3± 2.6typical
Visual Cues ?68.7 ± 6.8± 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
36sfaster than the board median of 70s
Prompt tokens in
10.9kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
2.1kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.017 ± 0.003measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$0.78 / $3.9 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 74.5 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 12.9 points on its overall. A typical amount of judge disagreement for this board. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
67.7
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
75.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek
80.5

How we ran Qwen3-Max

Frequently asked questions

How good is Qwen3-Max at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #91 of 130 with a writing Elo of 1224 and an overall score of 74.5/100. 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 Qwen3-Max the best Alibaba (Qwen) model for writing?

Not quite. Within Alibaba (Qwen) it ranks 4th of 10; Qwen3.8 Max is the family's best writer here.

Is Qwen3-Max good value for the money?

It costs about $0.017/task. DeepSeek V4 Flash (native chat alias) scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are Qwen3-Max's strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Length Discipline (68th on the board, 71.0). Its weakest is Anti-Slop (118th on the board, 67.4). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does Qwen3-Max write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 9 scripts was the founder announcement / personal origin story (80.8) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (69.8).

How consistent is Qwen3-Max between runs?

We run every script 5 times. Qwen3-Max's overall score varies by about ±3.8 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 Qwen3-Max evaluated?

Via OpenRouter using the exact model/route id qwen/qwen3-max, 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 Qwen3-Max open source?

No, it is a proprietary (closed-weights) model. Among proprietary models it ranks 67th of 83 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard