Voyage 3.5 Lite vs Qwen3 Embedding 8B

Detailed comparison between Voyage 3.5 Lite 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

Qwen3 Embedding 8B takes the lead.

Both Voyage 3.5 Lite and Qwen3 Embedding 8B are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Qwen3 Embedding 8B:

  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B has 13 higher ELO rating
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.818 vs 0.803)

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 3.5 Lite

1503

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

1516

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 3.5 Lite

44.4%

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

47.9%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 3.5 Lite

0.803

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

0.818

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 3.5 Lite

11ms

Qwen3 Embedding 8B

56ms

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 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1503
1516
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
44.4%
47.9%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.020
$0.050
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
512
4096
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
0.818
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
11ms
56ms
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 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
47120ms
151470ms
Average response time
P50
46178ms
148441ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
54188ms
174191ms
90th percentile

business reports

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
7ms
93874ms
Average response time
P50
7ms
91997ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
8ms
107955ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.641
0.633
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.632
0.625
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.219
0.235
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.367
0.381
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
6ms
200373ms
Average response time
P50
6ms
196366ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
7ms
230429ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.708
0.760
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.736
0.781
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.687
0.732
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.780
0.814
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
16ms
189471ms
Average response time
P50
16ms
185682ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
18ms
217892ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.670
0.750
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.719
0.765
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.718
0.843
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.843
0.883
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
12ms
200031ms
Average response time
P50
12ms
196030ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
13ms
230036ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.994
1.000
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.995
1.000
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.122
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.222
0.224
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
10ms
180144ms
Average response time
P50
10ms
176541ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
11ms
207166ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 3.5 LiteQwen3 Embedding 8BDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.928
0.913
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.935
0.919
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
14ms
12156ms
Average response time
P50
14ms
11913ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
15ms
13979ms
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.