Task ranking

Best LLM for Writing

Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks first for Writing as of October 20, 2026.[1][2][3] Ranks #1 on LiveBench Instruction Following and #6 on LMArena creative writing, showing strong performance across both objective language tasks and human preference for creative output. Gemini 3.7 Flash is the next-ranked alternative. It scores 79.93% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#2 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.

About this recommendation

Updated
Evidence through
Sources
12
Revision
v109

Decision audit

Why this result

Inspect the inputs and the computed order behind the recommendation.

Models screened

24

live candidates

Evaluation feeds

4

task-weighted

Winner coverage

100%

intended feed weight

Largest provider share

5 of 8

Google

Established source breadth. 3 citation families and 0 practitioner families provide attributed capability reports; 0 cautionary threads retained. The largest citation family contributes 67%.

Google: Gemini 3.8 Flash leads the measured task comparison with 2 independent evaluation families. Community volume, release age and usage popularity add no ranking points.

Real-world track record is still developing. The recommendation can lead on independent measurements while practitioner reports accumulate.

Sources evaluated

These are the weights used in scoring. Missing measurements are omitted from each model’s average. A feed with no result for any model released in the last 60 days is stale and does not score until it catches up.

winner: Gemini 3.8 Flash
Evaluation feedWeightWinner resultField measured
LMArena Creative WritingObserved 2026-10-15 · evaluation date not supplied · high effort
33%
#624/24
LiveBench Instruction Following (2026-06-25)Observed 2026-10-18 · evaluation date not supplied · gemini-3.8-flash-highfailing; last successful check 2026-10-18
28%
#124/24
LMArena TextObserved 2026-10-15 · evaluation date not supplied · high effort
22%
#824/24
LiveBench Language (2026-06-25)Observed 2026-10-18 · evaluation date not supplied · gemini-3.8-flash-highfailing; last successful check 2026-10-18
17%
#624/24

Provider concentration

Each exact model is scored separately; provider identity is not a ranking input.

Google63%
  • Google5 models
  • Anthropic1 model
  • Meta1 model
  • OpenAI1 model

Decision table

Every published model is shown in computed order. Practitioner sources are distinct community threads, not the citations repeated in the prose below.

  1. 01Gemini 3.8 Flash95

    Google · coverage 100%

    #1 LiveBench Instruction Following · #6 LiveBench Language

  2. 02Gemini 3.7 Flash92

    Google · coverage 100%

    #2 LiveBench Instruction Following · #8 LMArena Creative Writing

  3. 03Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview90

    Google · coverage 100%

    #3 LiveBench Instruction Following · #11 LMArena Creative Writing

  4. 04Claude Fable 5.189

    Anthropic · coverage 100%

    #3 LiveBench Language · #3 LMArena Creative Writing

  5. 05Muse Spark 1.387

    Meta · coverage 100%

    #4 LiveBench Instruction Following · #9 LMArena Text

  6. 06Gemini 3.5 Flash85

    Google · coverage 100%

    #6 LiveBench Instruction Following · #12 LMArena Creative Writing

  7. 07Gemini 3.6 Flash85

    Google · coverage 100%

    #8 LiveBench Instruction Following · #14 LMArena Creative Writing

  8. 08GPT-6 Astra84

    OpenAI · coverage 100%

    #4 LiveBench Language · #7 LiveBench Instruction Following

Task score averages the available, task-weighted measurements. Benchmark positions compare models matched to our catalog. Models measured by at least two independent evaluator families are considered first. Missing tests, practitioner report counts, popularity and release age add no points. Coverage describes evidence breadth, not a probability of correctness. Scores within two points are shown as close under this policy; this is not a statistical confidence interval. When the leading scores are that close, the model measured by more evaluator families ranks first.

  1. 01

    Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle · $0.83 in / $4.13 out per M tokens · 1.0M context

    Ranks #1 on LiveBench Instruction Following and #6 on LMArena creative writing, showing strong performance across both objective language tasks and human preference for creative output.

    Best when: Use for instruction-following tasks like paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization where it scores 81.41% (#1 of 59).
    Source 1
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 81.41% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#1 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”
    LiveBench Instruction FollowingOpen original ↗

    More tips

    • Deploy for creative writing workflows where it ranks #6 of 152 with Elo 1492 in blind human preference voting.
      Source 2
      “Within the 152 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #6 of 152 on LMArena's creative-writing category (Elo 1492), based on blind human preference votes.”
      LMArena creative-writing categoryOpen original ↗

    No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.

  2. 02

    Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle · $0.75 in / $3.75 out per M tokens · 1.0M context

    Gemini 3.7 Flash scores 79.93% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#2 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.

    Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LiveBench Instruction Following, which measures following detailed instructions exactly.
    Source 3
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 79.93% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#2 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”
    LiveBench Instruction FollowingOpen original ↗

    No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.

  3. 03

    Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGoogle · $2 in / $12 out per M tokens · 1.0M context

    Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores 79.1% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#3 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.

    Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LiveBench Instruction Following, which measures following detailed instructions exactly.
    Source 4
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 79.1% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#3 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”
    LiveBench Instruction FollowingOpen original ↗
  4. 04

    Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic · $10 in / $50 out per M tokens · 1M context

    Ranks #3 on LiveBench Language and #3 on LMArena creative writing with Elo 1508, showing strong objective language manipulation and high human preference for creative output.

    Best when: Use for language manipulation tasks where it scores 89.5% (#3 of 59) on LiveBench Language.
    Source 5
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 89.5% on LiveBench Language (#3 of 59), an objective evaluation of language manipulation tasks.”
    LiveBench LanguageOpen original ↗

    More tips

    • Deploy for creative writing where it ranks #3 of 152 with Elo 1508 in blind human preference voting.
      Source 6
      “Within the 152 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #3 of 152 on LMArena's creative-writing category (Elo 1508), based on blind human preference votes.”
      LMArena creative-writing categoryOpen original ↗

    Watch out for

    • Watch token consumption: one user reported 60% faster session burn compared to Fable 5 for mathematical analysis assistance, with unclear whether gains reflect actual performance or just preferred prose style.
      Source 7
      “The writing style has significantly improved, however the token burn rate for tasks I have been working on seems to have skyrocketed. It definitely appears more capable (though I am unclear how much of that is just me liking the English it writes now vs actually more performant). I was using Fable 5 for some mathematical analysis assistance and redoing a part of it with 5.1 burned 60% of my session at a much faster rate.”
      ddahlenOpen original ↗
  5. 05

    Muse Spark 1.3Meta · $1.25 in / $4.25 out per M tokens · 1.0M context

    Ranks #4 on LiveBench Instruction Following and #9 on LMArena overall text arena, showing solid performance in structured language tasks with moderate creative writing placement.

    Best when: Use for instruction-following tasks where it scores 78% (#4 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.
    Source 8
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 78% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#4 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”
    LiveBench Instruction FollowingOpen original ↗

    More tips

    • Deploy for general text tasks where it ranks #9 of 152 with Elo 1494 in blind human preference voting.
      Source 9
      “Within the 152 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #9 of 152 on LMArena's overall text arena (Elo 1494), based on blind human preference votes.”
      LMArena text arenaOpen original ↗

    No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.

  6. 06

    Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogle · $1.50 in / $9 out per M tokens · 1.0M context

    Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 75.6% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#6 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.

    Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LiveBench Instruction Following, which measures following detailed instructions exactly.
    Source 10
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 75.6% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#6 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”
    LiveBench Instruction FollowingOpen original ↗

    No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.

  7. 07

    Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle · $0.75 in / $3.75 out per M tokens · 1.0M context

    Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 75.37% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#8 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.

    Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LiveBench Instruction Following, which measures following detailed instructions exactly.
    Source 11
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 75.37% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#8 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”
    LiveBench Instruction FollowingOpen original ↗
  8. 08

    GPT-6 AstraOpenAI · $10 in / $50 out per M tokens · 1.1M context

    GPT-6 Astra scores 89.43% on LiveBench Language (#4 of 59), an objective evaluation of language manipulation tasks.

    Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LiveBench Language, which measures precise language understanding and editing.
    Source 12
    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 89.43% on LiveBench Language (#4 of 59), an objective evaluation of language manipulation tasks.”
    LiveBench LanguageOpen original ↗

    No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.

Frequently asked

What is the best model for Writing?
Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks first as of October 20, 2026. Ranks #1 on LiveBench Instruction Following and #6 on LMArena creative writing, showing strong performance across both objective language tasks and human preference for creative output.[1][2]
What is the best alternative to Gemini 3.8 Flash?
Gemini 3.7 Flash ranks second. Gemini 3.7 Flash scores 79.93% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#2 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.[3]

Sources

  1. 1

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 81.41% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#1 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”

    LiveBench Instruction Following · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  2. 2

    “Within the 152 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #6 of 152 on LMArena's creative-writing category (Elo 1492), based on blind human preference votes.”

    LMArena creative-writing category · Benchmark · Oct 15, 2026
  3. 3

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 79.93% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#2 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”

    LiveBench Instruction Following · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  4. 4

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 79.1% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#3 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”

    LiveBench Instruction Following · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  5. 5

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 89.5% on LiveBench Language (#3 of 59), an objective evaluation of language manipulation tasks.”

    LiveBench Language · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  6. 6

    “Within the 152 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #3 of 152 on LMArena's creative-writing category (Elo 1508), based on blind human preference votes.”

    LMArena creative-writing category · Benchmark · Oct 15, 2026
  7. 7

    “The writing style has significantly improved, however the token burn rate for tasks I have been working on seems to have skyrocketed. It definitely appears more capable (though I am unclear how much of that is just me liking the English it writes now vs actually more performant). I was using Fable 5 for some mathematical analysis assistance and redoing a part of it with 5.1 burned 60% of my session at a much faster rate.”

    ddahlen · Hacker News · Sep 2, 2026
  8. 8

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 78% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#4 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”

    LiveBench Instruction Following · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  9. 9

    “Within the 152 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #9 of 152 on LMArena's overall text arena (Elo 1494), based on blind human preference votes.”

    LMArena text arena · Benchmark · Oct 15, 2026
  10. 10

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 75.6% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#6 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”

    LiveBench Instruction Following · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  11. 11

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 75.37% on LiveBench Instruction Following (#8 of 59), including paraphrasing, simplifying, story generation, and summarization.”

    LiveBench Instruction Following · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026
  12. 12

    “Within the 59 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Scores 89.43% on LiveBench Language (#4 of 59), an objective evaluation of language manipulation tasks.”

    LiveBench Language · Benchmark · Oct 18, 2026

Rankings synthesized from community evidence and open benchmarks. See methodology. Not driven by vendor marketing.