zembed-1 vs Voyage 3 Large

Detailed comparison between zembed-1 and Voyage 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

zembed-1 takes the lead.

Both zembed-1 and Voyage 3 Large are powerful embedding models designed to improve retrieval quality in RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why zembed-1:

  • zembed-1 has 48 higher ELO rating
  • zembed-1 delivers better accuracy (nDCG@10: 0.619 vs 0.501)
  • zembed-1 has a 7.9% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

zembed-1

1595

Voyage 3 Large

1547

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

zembed-1

59.2%

Voyage 3 Large

51.3%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

zembed-1

0.619

Voyage 3 Large

0.501

Average Latency

Response time

zembed-1

250ms

Voyage 3 Large

272ms

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

Metriczembed-1Voyage 3 LargeDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1595
1547
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
59.2%
51.3%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.050
$0.180
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
2048
1024
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2026-03-02
2025-01-07
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.619
0.501
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
250ms
272ms
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

Metriczembed-1Voyage 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
250ms
307ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
307ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
307ms
90th percentile

business reports

Metriczembed-1Voyage 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
250ms
309ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
309ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
309ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

Metriczembed-1Voyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.832
0.801
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.811
0.790
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.062
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.121
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
188ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
188ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
188ms
90th percentile

FiQa

Metriczembed-1Voyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.862
0.000
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.855
0.000
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.668
0.000
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.712
0.000
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
319ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
319ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
319ms
90th percentile

SciFact

Metriczembed-1Voyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.767
0.766
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.777
0.779
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.888
0.837
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.929
0.878
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
230ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
230ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
230ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

Metriczembed-1Voyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.955
0.956
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.946
0.942
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.123
0.122
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.223
0.221
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
251ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
251ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
251ms
90th percentile

ARCD

Metriczembed-1Voyage 3 LargeDescription
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.851
0.898
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.858
0.905
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.920
0.960
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.940
0.980
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
300ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
300ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
300ms
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.