Voyage 3.5 Lite vs Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B

Detailed comparison between Voyage 3.5 Lite and Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B. See which embedding best meets your accuracy and performance needs.

Model Comparison

Voyage 3.5 Lite takes the lead.

Both Voyage 3.5 Lite and Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B 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 25 higher ELO rating
  • Voyage 3.5 Lite delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.803 vs 0.751)
  • Voyage 3.5 Lite has a 7.2% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 3.5 Lite

1503

Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B

1478

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 3.5 Lite

44.4%

Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B

37.3%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 3.5 Lite

0.803

Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B

0.751

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 3.5 Lite

11ms

Qwen3 Embedding 0.6B

22ms

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 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1503
1478
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
44.4%
37.3%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.020
$0.010
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
512
1024
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2025-05-20
2025-06-06
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.803
0.751
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
11ms
22ms
Average response time across all datasets

Dataset Performance

By field

Comprehensive comparison of accuracy metrics (nDCG, Recall) and latency percentiles for each benchmark dataset.

PG

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
8ms
13ms
Average response time
P50
8ms
13ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
9ms
15ms
90th percentile

business reports

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
7ms
22ms
Average response time
P50
7ms
21ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
8ms
25ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.641
0.549
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.632
0.556
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.219
0.216
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.367
0.350
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
6ms
13ms
Average response time
P50
6ms
13ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
7ms
15ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.708
0.620
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.736
0.647
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.687
0.590
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.780
0.680
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
16ms
42ms
Average response time
P50
16ms
41ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
19ms
49ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.670
0.666
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.719
0.686
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.718
0.723
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.843
0.783
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
12ms
20ms
Average response time
P50
11ms
19ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
13ms
23ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.994
0.997
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.995
0.992
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.122
0.122
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.222
0.215
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
10ms
13ms
Average response time
P50
10ms
13ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
11ms
15ms
90th percentile

NorQuAD

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
18ms
32ms
Average response time
P50
18ms
31ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
21ms
36ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 0.6BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.928
0.865
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.935
0.872
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.960
0.880
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.980
0.900
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
13ms
23ms
Average response time
P50
13ms
23ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
15ms
27ms
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.