Voyage 4 vs OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

Detailed comparison between Voyage 4 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-large. 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 4 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-large are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. They show comparable performance across key metrics.

Key similarities:

  • Voyage 4 has 23 higher ELO rating
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-large delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.709 vs 0.624)
  • OpenAI text-embedding-3-large is 321ms faster on average

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Voyage 4

1586

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

1563

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Voyage 4

57.0%

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

56.4%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

Voyage 4

0.624

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

0.709

Average Latency

Response time

Voyage 4

339ms

OpenAI text-embedding-3-large

18ms

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 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1586
1563
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
57.0%
56.4%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.060
$0.130
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
1024
3072
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2026-01-15
2024-01-25
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.624
0.709
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
339ms
18ms
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 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
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
21ms
Average response time
P50
310ms
21ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
325ms
21ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

MetricVoyage 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.815
0.815
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.811
0.795
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.062
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.122
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
327ms
19ms
Average response time
P50
312ms
19ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
357ms
19ms
90th percentile

FiQa

MetricVoyage 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.873
0.881
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.859
0.867
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.763
0.701
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.840
0.783
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
310ms
13ms
Average response time
P50
311ms
13ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
324ms
13ms
90th percentile

SciFact

MetricVoyage 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.737
0.702
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.758
0.727
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.804
0.764
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.878
0.861
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
321ms
19ms
Average response time
P50
311ms
19ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
331ms
19ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

MetricVoyage 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.941
0.956
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.931
0.947
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.123
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.221
0.223
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
317ms
28ms
Average response time
P50
307ms
28ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
323ms
28ms
90th percentile

ARCD

MetricVoyage 4OpenAI text-embedding-3-largeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.916
0.829
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.916
0.829
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.980
0.940
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.980
0.940
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
477ms
10ms
Average response time
P50
310ms
10ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
331ms
10ms
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.