zembed-1 vs Voyage 4

Detailed comparison between zembed-1 and Voyage 4. 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 4 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 is 89ms faster on average

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

zembed-1

1595

Voyage 4

1589

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

zembed-1

59.2%

Voyage 4

57.0%

Accuracy (nDCG@10)

Ranking quality metric

zembed-1

0.619

Voyage 4

0.624

Average Latency

Response time

zembed-1

250ms

Voyage 4

339ms

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 4Description
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1595
1589
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
59.2%
57.0%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Pricing & Availability
Price per 1M tokens
$0.050
$0.060
Cost per million tokens processed
Dimensions
2048
1024
Vector embedding dimensions (lower is more efficient)
Release Date
2026-03-02
2026-01-15
Model release date
Accuracy Metrics
Avg nDCG@10
0.619
0.624
Normalized discounted cumulative gain at position 10
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
250ms
339ms
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 4Description
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
311ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
309ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
321ms
90th percentile

business reports

Metriczembed-1Voyage 4Description
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
310ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
325ms
90th percentile

DBPedia

Metriczembed-1Voyage 4Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.832
0.815
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.811
0.811
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.062
0.062
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.121
0.122
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
327ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
312ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
357ms
90th percentile

FiQa

Metriczembed-1Voyage 4Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.862
0.873
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.855
0.859
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.668
0.763
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.712
0.840
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
310ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
311ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
324ms
90th percentile

SciFact

Metriczembed-1Voyage 4Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.767
0.737
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.777
0.758
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.888
0.804
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.929
0.878
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
321ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
311ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
331ms
90th percentile

MSMARCO

Metriczembed-1Voyage 4Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.955
0.941
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.946
0.931
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.123
0.123
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.223
0.221
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
317ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
307ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
323ms
90th percentile

ARCD

Metriczembed-1Voyage 4Description
Accuracy Metrics
nDCG@5
0.851
0.916
Ranking quality at top 5 results
nDCG@10
0.858
0.916
Ranking quality at top 10 results
Recall@5
0.920
0.980
% of relevant docs in top 5
Recall@10
0.940
0.980
% of relevant docs in top 10
Latency Metrics
Mean
250ms
477ms
Average response time
P50
250ms
310ms
50th percentile (median)
P90
250ms
331ms
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.