Voyage 3 Large vs Kanon 2

Detailed comparison between Voyage 3 Large and Kanon 2. 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 Voyage 3 Large and Kanon 2 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 98 higher ELO rating
  • Voyage 3 Large delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.501 vs 0.484)
  • Voyage 3 Large has a 17.8% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 3 Large

1547

Kanon 2

1450

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 3 Large

51.3%

Kanon 2

33.5%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 3 Large

0.501

Kanon 2

0.484

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 3 Large

272ms

Kanon 2

250ms

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

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1547
1450
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
51.3%
33.5%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.180
$0.350
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
1024
1792
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2025-01-07
2025-10-16
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.501
0.484
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
272ms
250ms
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.

PG

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
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
307ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
307ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
307ms
250ms
90th percentile

business reports

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
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
309ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
309ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
309ms
250ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.801
0.806
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.790
0.777
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.062
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.123
0.120
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
188ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
188ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
188ms
250ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.000
0.839
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.000
0.836
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.000
0.689
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.000
0.763
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
319ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
319ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
319ms
250ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.766
0.718
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.779
0.744
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.837
0.772
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.878
0.861
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
230ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
230ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
230ms
250ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.956
0.941
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.942
0.931
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.122
0.117
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.221
0.223
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
251ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
251ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
251ms
250ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 3 LargeKanon 2Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.898
0.009
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.905
0.009
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.960
0.020
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.980
0.020
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
300ms
250ms
Average response time
P50
300ms
250ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
300ms
250ms
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.