OpenAI text-embedding-3-small vs OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

Detailed comparison between OpenAI text-embedding-3-small and OpenAI text-embedding-3-large. 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-small and OpenAI text-embedding-3-large 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 83 higher ELO rating
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-large delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.709 vs 0.689)
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-large has a 12.5% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

1480

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

1563

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

43.9%

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

56.4%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

0.689

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

0.709

Average Latency

Response time

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

15ms

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

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-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1480
1563
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
43.9%
56.4%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.020
$0.130
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
1536
3072
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2024-01-25
2024-01-25
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.689
0.709
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
15ms
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-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
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
16ms
21ms
Average response time
P50
16ms
21ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
16ms
21ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.858
0.815
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.807
0.795
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.062
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.123
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
9ms
19ms
Average response time
P50
9ms
19ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
9ms
19ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.801
0.881
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.814
0.867
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.624
0.701
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.682
0.783
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
16ms
13ms
Average response time
P50
16ms
13ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
16ms
13ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.663
0.702
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.684
0.727
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.774
0.764
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.840
0.861
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
17ms
19ms
Average response time
P50
17ms
19ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
17ms
19ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.959
0.956
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.946
0.947
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.122
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.212
0.223
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
20ms
28ms
Average response time
P50
20ms
28ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
20ms
28ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricOpenAI text-embedding-3-smallOpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.786
0.829
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.793
0.829
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.900
0.940
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.920
0.940
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
15ms
10ms
Average response time
P50
15ms
10ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
15ms
10ms
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.