Voyage 3 Large vs Qwen3 Embedding 8B

Detailed comparison between Voyage 3 Large and Qwen3 Embedding 8B. See which embedding best meets your accuracy and performance needs. If you want to compare these models on your data, try Agentset.

Model Comparison

Two competitive embeddings, closely matched.

Both Voyage 3 Large and Qwen3 Embedding 8B are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. They show comparable performance across key metrics.

Key similarities:

  • Voyage 3 Large has 24 higher ELO rating
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.718 vs 0.501)
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B is 232ms faster on average

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 3 Large

1534

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

1510

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 3 Large

51.3%

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

48.8%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 3 Large

0.501

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

0.718

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 3 Large

272ms

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

41ms

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 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1534
1510
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
51.3%
48.8%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.180
$0.050
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
1024
4096
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2025-01-07
2025-06-06
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.501
0.718
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
272ms
41ms
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

MetricVoyage 3 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
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
48ms
Average response time
P50
309ms
48ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
309ms
48ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 3 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.801
0.806
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.790
0.797
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
188ms
49ms
Average response time
P50
188ms
49ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
188ms
49ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 3 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.000
0.884
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.000
0.880
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.000
0.736
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.000
0.818
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
319ms
30ms
Average response time
P50
319ms
30ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
319ms
30ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 3 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.766
0.739
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.779
0.744
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.837
0.840
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.878
0.881
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
230ms
41ms
Average response time
P50
230ms
41ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
230ms
41ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 3 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.956
0.945
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.942
0.937
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.122
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.221
0.223
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
251ms
39ms
Average response time
P50
251ms
39ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
251ms
39ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 3 LargeQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.898
0.851
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.905
0.857
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.960
0.920
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.980
0.940
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
300ms
35ms
Average response time
P50
300ms
35ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
300ms
35ms
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.