OpenAI text-embedding-3-large vs Voyage 3.5

Detailed comparison between OpenAI text-embedding-3-large and Voyage 3.5. See which embedding best meets your accuracy and performance needs. If you want to compare these models on your data, try Agentset.

Model Comparison

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large takes the lead.

Both OpenAI text-embedding-3-large and Voyage 3.5 are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why OpenAI text-embedding-3-large:

  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-large has 74 higher ELO rating
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-large has a 9.4% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

1563

Voyage 3.5

1489

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

56.4%

Voyage 3.5

47.0%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

0.709

Voyage 3.5

0.703

Average Latency

Response time

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

18ms

Voyage 3.5

18ms

Embedding Models Are Just One Piece of RAG

Agentset gives you a managed RAG pipeline with the top-ranked models and best practices baked in. No infrastructure to maintain, no embeddings to manage.

Trusted by teams building production RAG applications

5M+
Documents
1,500+
Teams
99.9%
Uptime

Visual Performance Analysis

Performance

ELO Rating Comparison

Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown

Accuracy Across Datasets (nDCG@10)

Latency Distribution (ms)

Breakdown

How the models stack up

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1563
1489
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
56.4%
47.0%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.130
$0.060
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
3072
1024
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2024-01-25
2025-05-20
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.709
0.703
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
18ms
18ms
Average response time across all datasets

Build RAG in Minutes, Not Months

Agentset gives you a complete RAG API with top-ranked embedding models and smart retrieval built in. Upload your data, call the API, and get accurate results from day one.

import { Agentset } from "agentset";

const agentset = new Agentset();
const ns = agentset.namespace("ns_1234");

const results = await ns.search(
  "What is multi-head attention?"
);

for (const result of results) {
  console.log(result.text);
}

Dataset Performance

By field

Comprehensive comparison of accuracy metrics (nDCG, Recall) and latency percentiles for each benchmark dataset.

business reports

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.000
0.000
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.000
0.000
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.000
0.000
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.000
0.000
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
21ms
16ms
Average response time
P50
21ms
16ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
21ms
16ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.815
0.783
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.795
0.782
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.062
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.123
0.121
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
19ms
7ms
Average response time
P50
19ms
7ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
19ms
7ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.881
0.848
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.867
0.825
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.701
0.688
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.783
0.783
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
13ms
63ms
Average response time
P50
13ms
63ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
13ms
63ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.702
0.669
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.727
0.705
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.764
0.733
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.861
0.840
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
19ms
7ms
Average response time
P50
19ms
7ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
19ms
7ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.956
0.958
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.947
0.944
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.123
0.122
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.223
0.221
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
28ms
6ms
Average response time
P50
28ms
6ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
28ms
6ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeVoyage 3.5Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.829
0.867
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.829
0.873
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.940
0.960
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.940
0.980
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
10ms
8ms
Average response time
P50
10ms
8ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
10ms
8ms
90th percentile

Explore More

Compare more embeddings

See how all embedding models stack up. Compare OpenAI, Cohere, Jina AI, Voyage, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks, compare performance metrics, and find the perfect embedding for your RAG application.