Qwen3 Embedding 4B vs Voyage 3 Large

Detailed comparison between Qwen3 Embedding 4B and Voyage 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

Voyage 3 Large takes the lead.

Both Qwen3 Embedding 4B and Voyage 3 Large are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Voyage 3 Large:

  • Voyage 3 Large has 53 higher ELO rating
  • Qwen3 Embedding 4B delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.705 vs 0.501)
  • Qwen3 Embedding 4B is 244ms faster on average
  • Voyage 3 Large has a 6.7% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Qwen3 Embedding 4B

1482

Voyage 3 Large

1534

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Qwen3 Embedding 4B

44.6%

Voyage 3 Large

51.3%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Qwen3 Embedding 4B

0.705

Voyage 3 Large

0.501

Average Latency

Response time

Qwen3 Embedding 4B

29ms

Voyage 3 Large

272ms

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

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 3 LargeDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1482
1534
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
44.6%
51.3%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.020
$0.180
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
2560
1024
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2025-06-06
2025-01-07
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.705
0.501
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
29ms
272ms
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

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 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
29ms
309ms
Average response time
P50
29ms
309ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
29ms
309ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.799
0.801
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.787
0.790
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.061
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.119
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
26ms
188ms
Average response time
P50
26ms
188ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
26ms
188ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.838
0.000
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.836
0.000
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.719
0.000
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.839
0.000
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
23ms
319ms
Average response time
P50
23ms
319ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
23ms
319ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.666
0.766
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.697
0.779
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.782
0.837
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.891
0.878
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
38ms
230ms
Average response time
P50
38ms
230ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
38ms
230ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.974
0.956
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.954
0.942
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.124
0.122
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.224
0.221
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
31ms
251ms
Average response time
P50
31ms
251ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
31ms
251ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricQwen3 Embedding 4BVoyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.857
0.898
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.864
0.905
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.940
0.960
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.960
0.980
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
25ms
300ms
Average response time
P50
25ms
300ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
25ms
300ms
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.