Voyage 3.5 vs OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

Detailed comparison between Voyage 3.5 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-small. See which embedding best meets your accuracy and performance needs.

Model Comparison

Voyage 3.5 takes the lead.

Both Voyage 3.5 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-small are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Voyage 3.5:

  • Voyage 3.5 has 12 higher ELO rating
  • Voyage 3.5 delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.816 vs 0.762)
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-small is 5413ms faster on average

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 3.5

1515

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

1503

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 3.5

48.8%

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

44.6%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 3.5

0.816

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

0.762

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 3.5

35370ms

OpenAI text-embedding-3-small

29958ms

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 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1515
1503
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
48.8%
44.6%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.060
$0.020
Cost per million tokens processed
Release Date
2025-05-20
2024-01-25
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.816
0.762
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
35370ms
29958ms
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 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
58887ms
55877ms
Average response time
P50
57709ms
54759ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
67720ms
64259ms
90th percentile

business reports

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
13273ms
5645ms
Average response time
P50
13008ms
5532ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
15264ms
6492ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.655
0.605
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.637
0.604
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.246
0.230
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.366
0.365
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
31763ms
35365ms
Average response time
P50
31128ms
34658ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
36527ms
40670ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.721
0.635
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.741
0.647
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.715
0.623
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.793
0.681
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
47784ms
41338ms
Average response time
P50
46828ms
40511ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
54952ms
47539ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.723
0.682
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.751
0.707
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.778
0.778
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.853
0.843
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
68375ms
55544ms
Average response time
P50
67008ms
54433ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
78631ms
63876ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
1.000
0.997
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
1.000
0.990
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.123
0.122
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.224
0.213
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
48284ms
35961ms
Average response time
P50
47318ms
35242ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
55527ms
41355ms
90th percentile

NorQuAD

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
7770ms
6467ms
Average response time
P50
7615ms
6338ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
8936ms
7437ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 3.5OpenAI text-embedding-3-smallDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.950
0.855
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.950
0.862
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.980
0.900
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.980
0.920
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
6825ms
3464ms
Average response time
P50
6689ms
3395ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
7849ms
3984ms
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.