Voyage 3.5 Lite vs Jina Embeddings v3

Detailed comparison between Voyage 3.5 Lite and Jina Embeddings v3. 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 3.5 Lite takes the lead.

Both Voyage 3.5 Lite and Jina Embeddings v3 are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Voyage 3.5 Lite:

  • Voyage 3.5 Lite has 75 higher ELO rating
  • Voyage 3.5 Lite delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.703 vs 0.674)
  • Voyage 3.5 Lite is 204ms faster on average
  • Voyage 3.5 Lite has a 9.6% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 3.5 Lite

1490

Jina Embeddings v3

1414

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 3.5 Lite

44.2%

Jina Embeddings v3

34.6%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 3.5 Lite

0.703

Jina Embeddings v3

0.674

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 3.5 Lite

19ms

Jina Embeddings v3

223ms

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 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1490
1414
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
44.2%
34.6%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.020
$0.045
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
512
1024
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2025-05-20
2024-09-18
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.703
0.674
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
19ms
223ms
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 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
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
54ms
26ms
Average response time
P50
54ms
26ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
54ms
26ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.793
0.835
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.787
0.789
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.061
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.120
0.121
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
7ms
107ms
Average response time
P50
7ms
107ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
7ms
107ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.812
0.764
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.796
0.775
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.718
0.635
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.796
0.745
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
12ms
273ms
Average response time
P50
12ms
273ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
12ms
273ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.704
0.600
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.726
0.636
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.774
0.709
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.850
0.816
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
9ms
75ms
Average response time
P50
9ms
75ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
9ms
75ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.965
0.958
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.944
0.944
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.123
0.124
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.223
0.219
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
15ms
346ms
Average response time
P50
15ms
346ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
15ms
346ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteJina Embeddings v3Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.874
0.797
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.874
0.809
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.980
0.920
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.980
0.960
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
18ms
513ms
Average response time
P50
18ms
513ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
18ms
513ms
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.