Roark Live Bench · Suite v1.3 · Sweep of 30 October 2026
Voice AI models, ranked on live phone calls.
Every speech-to-text, language model and text-to-speech model, run in every combination on the same real call to the same agent. A model is ranked on every stack it runs in; the stacks are the evidence.
Our picks
Roark scoreTask completionMedian responseCost per minute- Best overallUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Turbo v2.570 / 10096%4.0 s$0.12
- Best valueUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Coda69 / 10098%4.0 s$0.040
- FastestGrok Voice 3.066 / 10087%1.9 s$0.086
- Best speech-to-speechGPT Live 1 (Sol)65 / 10085%2.3 s$0.061
- Best in customer supportGrok Voice 3.085 / 10095%1.7 s$0.083
- Best in healthcareUniversal-3.5 Pro + Gemini 3.8 Flash + Flash v2.575 / 10097%4.3 s$0.10
- Best in home servicesGPT Live 1 (Luna)79 / 10095%2.1 s$0.052
- Best in insuranceUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-4o + Sonic-3.676 / 10098%3.2 s$0.042
The read
- 430 of 642 cascades complete the task in at least 90% of calls, and the top 10 sit within 1 point of each other. What separates the top stacks is speed and cost.
- Median response time runs from 2.0 s to 6.2 s on the same agent and the same caller, a spread of 4.2 s that comes entirely from the models behind it.
- No stack wins everything. The fastest, Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 + ElevenLabs Turbo v2.5 at 2.0 s, ranks 559 of 642 on task completion; the most complete is Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD at 99%.
- The language model matters most: swapping it moves task completion by 7 points, against 3 for the speech engine and 2 for the transcriber.
- The fastest speech-to-speech model answers 0.1 s sooner than the fastest cascade, and its completion rate sits 12 points below the best cascade.
Cascade vs Speech-to-Speech
The first choice to make. A cascade chains three models: one transcribes, one decides what to say, one speaks. A speech-to-speech model does all three at once. Both run the same agent on the same calls here.
- Cascades lead on task completion, tool use, time to first word, barge-in handling and cost per task; speech-to-speech leads on response time. Neither wins outright, so the right choice depends on what your calls need.
- Speech-to-speech costs 1.6 times as much per completed task: $0.24 for speech-to-speech against $0.15 for cascades.
- The biggest difference is response time: 3.8 s for cascades against 2.1 s for speech-to-speech.
| Measure | Cascade | Speech-to-speech |
|---|---|---|
| Task completion | 94% (leads) | 85% |
| Tool use | 78% (leads) | 78% |
| Time to first word | 0.8 s (leads) | 1.1 s |
| Response time | 3.8 s | 2.1 s (leads) |
| Barge-in handling | 100% (leads) | 96% |
| Cost per task | $0.15 (leads) | $0.24 |
The three strongest of each, averaged. Cascades: AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + Rime Coda; Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-4.1 + Rime Coda; AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro + Google Gemini 3.8 Flash + Rime Coda. Speech-to-speech: grok-voice-think-fast-2.0; gpt-live-1 (backend gpt-6-luna); grok-voice-3.0. Each measure is scored 0 to 100 on its own scale, further out is better; the table gives the same figures in their own units.
Which to use
- Choose speech-to-speech when the pause matters more than the outcome: short transactional calls, callers who interrupt, queues where every half second costs you callers. Expect to pay more, and choose the model carefully (grok-voice-3.0 leads here).
- Choose a cascade when the call has to complete, when cost matters, or when you need to see which stage to fix. It is 12 points ahead on task completion here.
- Costs are what each stack’s providers charged for these calls, at the rates in effect when they ran. Telephony and hosting are not included.
Speech-to-Text
The transcriber turns the caller's speech into text. It decides what the agent thinks it heard, and nothing after it can start until it finishes.
- AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro, AssemblyAI Universal-3.5 Pro, Deepgram Nova-3 and Speechmatics Enhanced (realtime) are level: none leads by more than the margin of error. Of them, AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro costs least, at $0.030 a call. Avoid Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD): last on semantic word error rate (2.2%).
- Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) delivers its transcript in 0.49 s, OpenAI Whisper-1 in 1.93 s: 1.44 s added to every turn of the call.
- AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro is the most accurate: it changes the meaning of 0.9% of the caller's words, against 2.2% for Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD).
- In 341 of 648 cascades the transcriber is the slowest step of the turn, whichever model runs it.
Roark score, best first
| # | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Universal-3.6 ProAssemblyAI | 90 / 100. Semantic word error rate 0.9%, 61.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 0.9%(among the best) | 0.89 s(among the best) | $0.030 |
| 2 | Universal-3.5 ProAssemblyAI | 84 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 55.7 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.90 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 1.1%(among the best) | 0.90 s | $0.030 |
| 3 | Nova-3Deepgram | 82 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 53.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 1.1%(among the best) | 0.89 s(among the best) | $0.031 |
| 4 | Enhanced (realtime)Speechmatics | 82 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 53.3 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.98 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 1.1%(among the best) | 0.98 s | $0.054 |
| 5 | Linden-1Speechmatics | 79 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.3%, 50.0 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.99 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 1.3% | 0.99 s | $0.020(among the best) |
| 6 | Nova-2Deepgram | 71 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.5%, 42.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 1.5% | 0.89 s(among the best) | $0.023(among the best) |
| 7 | Standard (realtime)Speechmatics | 66 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.7%, 37.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.96 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 1.7% | 0.96 s | $0.031 |
| 8 | Whisper-1OpenAI | 56 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.4%, 45.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 1.93 s, 10.9 of 29 points | 1.4% | 1.93 s | $0.025 |
| 9 | Linden-1 (own VAD)Speechmatics | 52 / 100. Semantic word error rate 2.2%, 23.1 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.49 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 2.2% | 0.49 s(among the best) | $0.020(among the best) |
Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.
Language model
The language model decides what the agent says and does. It has the most influence on whether the task gets done, and usually takes the largest share of each turn.
- Pick OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol: it leads on task completion (95%), tool use (77%) and instruction following (4.2 / 5). If speed matters more, Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 is the quickest, at 0.36 s, and completes 91%. Avoid OpenAI GPT-4o: last on task completion (88%).
- Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 starts answering in 0.36 s, Google Gemini 3.8 Flash in 1.47 s: 1.11 s added to every turn of the call.
- OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol uses its tools most reliably: it handles its tools without a mistake on 77% of calls, against 38% for OpenAI GPT-5.1.
- In 161 of 648 cascades the language model is the slowest step of the turn, whichever model runs it.
Roark score, best first
| # | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI | 66 / 100. Task completion 95%, 27.0 of 36 points; Tool use 77%, 15.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.3 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.97 s, 12.4 of 18 points(among the best) | 95%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 77%(among the best) | 0.97 s | 73% | $0.019(among the best) |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic | 61 / 100. Task completion 94%, 25.1 of 36 points; Tool use 72%, 11.8 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.90 s, 13.3 of 18 points(among the best) | 94%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 72%(among the best) | 0.90 s | – | $0.138 |
| 3 | Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle | 51 / 100. Task completion 95%, 26.5 of 36 points; Tool use 62%, 6.7 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.1 of 18 points; Time to first token 1.47 s, 6.4 of 18 points(among the best) | 95%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 62%(among the best) | 1.47 s | – | $0.016(among the best) |
| 4 | GPT-4.1OpenAI | 50 / 100. Task completion 92%, 21.2 of 36 points; Tool use 48%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.52 s, 18.0 of 18 points | 92% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 48% | 0.52 s | 82%(among the best) | $0.022 |
| 5 | Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic | 49 / 100. Task completion 91%, 19.4 of 36 points; Tool use 47%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.0 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.36 s, 18.2 of 18 points | 91% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 47% | 0.36 s(among the best) | – | $0.062 |
| 6 | GPT-4o miniOpenAI | 47 / 100. Task completion 90%, 17.4 of 36 points; Tool use 51%, 0.7 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.45 s, 18.2 of 18 points | 90% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 51% | 0.45 s(among the best) | 81%(among the best) | $0.002(among the best) |
| 7 | GPT-5.1OpenAI | 44 / 100. Task completion 89%, 17.0 of 36 points; Tool use 38%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.1 / 5, 10.1 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.59 s, 17.1 of 18 points | 89% | 4.1 / 5 | 38% | 0.59 s | 74%(among the best) | $0.031 |
| 8 | GPT-4oOpenAI | 44 / 100. Task completion 88%, 15.0 of 36 points; Tool use 50%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.9 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.45 s, 18.2 of 18 points | 88% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 50% | 0.45 s(among the best) | – | $0.027 |
Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.
Text-to-Speech
The speech engine is the voice the caller hears, and the last step before they hear anything.
- Cartesia Sonic-3.6, ElevenLabs v4 Turbo and Cartesia Sonic-3.5 are level: none leads by more than the margin of error. Of them, Cartesia Sonic-3.5 costs least, at $0.165 a call. Avoid OpenAI TTS-1 HD: last on readback accuracy (80%), word error rate (8.7%) and time to first audio byte (2.09 s).
- ElevenLabs v4 Turbo starts speaking in 0.11 s, OpenAI TTS-1 HD in 2.09 s: 1.97 s added to every turn of the call.
- Cartesia Sonic-3.6 is the most accurate: it reads codes, amounts and dates back correctly 87% of the time, against 80% for OpenAI TTS-1 HD.
- Cartesia Sonic-3.6 sounds the most human: 3.8 / 5, against 3.4 / 5 for ElevenLabs Flash v2.5.
- In 99 of 648 cascades the speech engine is the slowest step of the turn, most often with OpenAI TTS-1 HD (54 of them).
Roark score, best first
| # | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sonic-3.6Cartesia | 77 / 100. Readback accuracy 87%, 25.6 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.2%, 14.5 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.12 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 12.1 of 13 points(among the best) | 6.2% | 87%(among the best) | 3.8 / 5(among the best) | 99% | 0.12 s(among the best) | $0.168 |
| 2 | v4 TurboElevenLabs | 77 / 100. Readback accuracy 87%, 25.1 of 38 points; Word error rate 5.7%, 15.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.11 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.2 of 13 points(among the best) | 5.7%(among the best) | 87%(among the best) | 3.6 / 5 | 98% | 0.11 s(among the best) | $0.470 |
| 3 | Sonic-3.5Cartesia | 77 / 100. Readback accuracy 86%, 24.6 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.2%, 14.6 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.13 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.4 of 13 points(among the best) | 6.2% | 86%(among the best) | 3.8 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | 0.13 s | $0.165 |
| 4 | Sonic-3Cartesia | 73 / 100. Readback accuracy 85%, 23.3 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.9%, 12.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.17 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 12.1 of 13 points | 6.9% | 85% | 3.4 / 5 | 99% | 0.17 s | $0.165 |
| 5 | Turbo v2.5ElevenLabs | 71 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 19.0 of 38 points; Word error rate 5.7%, 15.6 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.15 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.5 of 13 points | 5.7%(among the best) | 80% | 3.4 / 5 | 98% | 0.15 s | $0.451 |
| 6 | Flash v2.5ElevenLabs | 70 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 18.5 of 38 points; Word error rate 6%, 14.9 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.12 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.5 of 13 points | 6%(among the best) | 80% | 3.4 / 5 | 98% | 0.12 s(among the best) | $0.437 |
| 7 | CodaRime | 68 / 100. Readback accuracy 83%, 21.7 of 38 points; Word error rate 8.1%, 9.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.18 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 11.8 of 13 points | 8.1% | 83% | 3.7 / 5(among the best) | 99% | 0.18 s | $0.116(among the best) |
| 8 | TTS-1OpenAI | 55 / 100. Readback accuracy 82%, 21.0 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.1%, 14.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 1.13 s, 7.1 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.5 of 13 points | 6.1% | 82% | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | 1.13 s | $0.036(among the best) |
| 9 | TTS-1 HDOpenAI | 39 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 18.3 of 38 points; Word error rate 8.7%, 8.4 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 2.09 s, 0.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.4 of 13 points | 8.7% | 80% | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | 2.09 s | $0.065(among the best) |
Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.
Speech-to-Speech models
One model listens, reasons and speaks, so there is nothing to swap and no stages to split. Each is judged on the whole call, with the same calls and the same scoring as every cascade.
- The model matters as much as the architecture: xAI Grok Voice 3.0 completes 87% of tasks, ElevenLabs Realtime v1 Mini 42%.
- xAI Grok Voice 3.0 answers in 1.9 s against 4.2 s for Google Gemini 2.5 Flash native audio.
- Price varies as much as quality: $0.06 per completed task for Amazon Nova 2 Sonic, $0.69 for OpenAI GPT Realtime 2.
Roark score, best first
Whiskers show the 95% interval. The shaded models tie for first: these calls cannot separate them.
| # | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1= (tied) | GPT Live 1 (Sol)OpenAI | 65 / 100±3.8. Task completion 85%, 6.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.3 s, 16.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.2 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 87%, 10.2 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.4 s, 3.9 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 85%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5 | 87%(among the best) | 2.3 s(among the best) | 1.4 s | 77% | 3.1 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.24 |
| 2= (tied) | Grok Voice 3.0xAI | 66 / 100±4.7. Task completion 87%, 8.0 of 23 points; Response time 1.9 s, 18.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.5 / 5, 10.5 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 66%, 4.4 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.9 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 87%(among the best) | 4.5 / 5(among the best) | 66% | 1.9 s(among the best) | 0.9 s | 94% | 3.0 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.26 |
| 3= (tied) | GPT Live 1 (Luna)OpenAI | 65 / 100±3.5. Task completion 85%, 5.7 of 23 points; Response time 2.3 s, 16.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 86%, 9.9 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.8 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 85%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5 | 86%(among the best) | 2.3 s(among the best) | 1.5 s | 93% | 3.1 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.21 |
| 4= (tied) | Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0xAI | 65 / 100±3.7. Task completion 82%, 2.8 of 23 points; Response time 2.2 s, 17.4 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.6 / 5, 10.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 82%, 8.6 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.9 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 82% | 4.6 / 5(among the best) | 82%(among the best) | 2.2 s(among the best) | 0.9 s | 100%(among the best) | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.26 |
| 5= (tied) | Gemini 3.8 LiveGoogle | 53 / 100±4.8. Task completion 78%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.8 s, 14.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.3 / 5, 8.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 69%, 5.2 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.6 s, 3.6 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 78% | 4.3 / 5(among the best) | 69% | 2.8 s | 1.6 s | 100%(among the best) | 4.1 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.14(among the best) |
| 6= (tied) | GPT Realtime 2.1OpenAI | 53 / 100±5.7. Task completion 78%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.6 s, 15.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.6 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 75%, 6.8 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.8 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 99%, 4.3 of 5 points | 78% | 3.8 / 5 | 75% | 2.6 s | 0.8 s(among the best) | 83% | 3.9 / 5(among the best) | 99% | $0.43 |
| 7= (tied) | Ultravox v0.7Ultravox | 48 / 100±5.0. Task completion 79%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.4 s, 16.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.7 / 5, 4.9 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 61%, 3.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.6 s, 3.6 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 79% | 3.7 / 5 | 61% | 2.4 s | 1.6 s | 94% | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.22 |
| 8= (tied) | Gemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)Google | 48 / 100±5.1. Task completion 80%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.7 s, 15.1 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.0 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 38%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.8 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 80% | 4.2 / 5 | 38% | 2.7 s | 1.5 s | 100%(among the best) | 4.0 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.15 |
| 9= (tied) | GPT Realtime 2OpenAI | 48 / 100±6.7. Task completion 76%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.9 s, 14.0 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 64%, 3.7 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.8 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 76% | 3.8 / 5 | 64% | 2.9 s | 0.8 s(among the best) | 91% | 3.7 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.69 |
| 10= (tied) | Nova 2 SonicAmazon | 46 / 100±5.1. Task completion 69%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 3.0 s, 13.8 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 7.9 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 48%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.7 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 69% | 4.2 / 5 | 48% | 3.0 s | 1.5 s | 100%(among the best) | 3.5 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.06(among the best) |
| 11= (tied) | Realtime v1 MaxElevenLabs | 47 / 100±7.5. Task completion 56%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.6 s, 15.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.0 / 5, 6.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 40%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.7 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 56% | 4.0 / 5 | 40% | 2.6 s | 0.7 s(among the best) | 76% | 3.9 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.65 |
| 12= (tied) | Realtime v1 MiniElevenLabs | 45 / 100±7.1. Task completion 42%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.7 s, 15.1 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.1 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 34%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.7 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 42% | 3.8 / 5 | 34% | 2.7 s | 0.7 s(among the best) | 94% | 3.4 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.64 |
| 13= (tied) | GPT Realtime 2.1 miniOpenAI | 44 / 100±6.7. Task completion 70%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.8 s, 14.5 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.6 / 5, 4.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 51%, 0.3 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.0 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 70% | 3.6 / 5 | 51% | 2.8 s | 1.0 s | 84% | 3.9 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.14(among the best) |
| 14 | Gemini 2.5 Flash native audioGoogle | 36 / 100±5.4. Task completion 77%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 4.2 s, 8.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.9 / 5, 6.2 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 40%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 3.4 s, 0.9 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 77% | 3.9 / 5 | 40% | 4.2 s | 3.4 s | 100%(among the best) | 3.7 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.08(among the best) |
Open a model for its full report, every figure it was scored on and the calls behind them.
Every stack
The evidence behind the model boards: each combination on its own calls, scored on the same recipe. Open a stack for its full report, every figure it was scored on and the calls behind them.
Roark score, top 15
Whiskers show the 95% interval. The shaded stacks tie for first: these calls cannot separate them.
Each score carries its 95% margin of error. A rank is the best place a stack could hold once every margin is allowed for, so stacks the calls cannot tell apart share one and are listed by the low end of their margin; hover a rank for the worst place it could hold. 85 stacks are level with the leader: their calls cannot tell them apart. Among them, 36 OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol, 22 Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5, 19 Google Gemini 3.8 Flash, 4 speech-to-speech, 3 Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 and 1 OpenAI GPT-4o mini; 42 AssemblyAI, 20 Deepgram and 19 Speechmatics; 37 Cartesia, 36 ElevenLabs, 7 Rime and 1 OpenAI. A cascade's figures are 25% its own calls and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice. Not ranked here for missing data: Speechmatics Linden-1 + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD (no response time or tool use or readback accuracy or voice consistency).
By industry
Each industry ranked on its own calls: the same five callers, its own tasks and tools. A stack has a handful of calls in each, so a cascade is ranked on what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry, and a speech-to-speech model on its own calls there. Pairings show on the main board. Each row reads across: the main board's figure first, then every industry's on the same figure.
No stack matches these filters.
No stack matches
Each industry column is that industry's own board, every row it ranks. A dash is a row the industry does not rank on this figure; the arrow beside an industry opens its full board.
How it works
Every number on this page comes from real phone calls, placed and scored the same way for every stack.
Real calls, four industries, five callers
Roark places real phone calls over the public phone network to a reference agent for each of four industries: rescheduling a clinic appointment, booking an urgent home repair, opening an auto insurance claim and fixing an internet outage. Each agent has its own prompt and tools, identical for every stack. The tasks carry the details real calls trip on: a corrected date of birth, a policy number spelled out, a constraint added halfway through.
Every industry is called by the same five simulated callers: a quiet US English line, a Spanish-accented caller on a city street, an Indian English caller in a busy café, a flustered Southern caller with a baby crying, and a fast caller who interrupts over construction noise. They are equally clear about what they want, so a call fails because of the agent, not the caller. Only the models change, so any difference on the board comes from them.
Each caller rings each industry once for a cascade and four times for a speech-to-speech model. A cascade's figures also draw on its parts, heard in dozens of other stacks; a speech-to-speech model has only its own calls, so it takes more of them.
That makes industries comparable over the same callers, and callers over the same tasks, and the board can be re-ranked by either. One caller within one industry is too few calls to judge, so the board never shows it.
656
stacks
20
calls per stack
13,956
calls scored
Every model, in every combination
9 transcribers, 8 language models and 9 voices are run in every combination with each other, beside 14 speech-to-speech models. A model's own figures pool every stack it runs in, adjusted for its partners in each one, so every model is compared as if it ran with the same partners. A transcriber's figure rests on hundreds of calls with every language model and every voice, not on one lucky pairing.
That measures a model where it actually works: inside a running agent, on live phone audio, through interruptions, corrections and real turn-taking. A test that feeds a model clean audio files or one prompt at a time never sees any of that.
One score, weighted by what matters on a call
Each section ranks on a Roark score. Every figure scores 0 to 100 between two published points: full marks where doing better makes no difference to the caller, zero where the call breaks down. Each then counts at its weight, and the weights follow one order everywhere: whether the caller got what they rang for, then whether the agent got it right, then speed.
A stack, cascade or speech-to-speech, is scored on the outcome and the reply first, then on what each of its components got right on its own calls: the words its transcriber got wrong in a way that changes the meaning, whether its voice read codes and amounts back right and kept one steady voice, and whether its tools were handled. How human a voice sounds is shown on the boards and not scored. A component that leads its section lifts every stack that carries it, by the same recipe for every stack. A figure a stack cannot carry, such as a semantic word error rate for a speech-to-speech model with no transcript, is credited at the field median, so the stack is neither flattered nor punished for it.
On a full sweep each cascade's figure is 25% what its own calls measured and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice, fitted across the whole sweep. The split is the same for every stack, so a lucky run does not lead and a stack's score does not move with how noisy its calls were. In an industry a stack has a handful of calls, so a cascade's figure there is what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry's calls, and a speech-to-speech model's is its own calls there. How a particular pairing beats or misses its parts shows on the main board, where each stack has all of its calls. The best overall, best value and best speech-to-speech picks, and the best stack in each industry, are each the one whose score is highest at the low end of its margin of error, so a few lucky calls cannot carry a stack past one whose score rests on hundreds. Stacks that share a rank are listed by score, so the pick can sit below a higher score it cannot be told from, and its reason says how many stacks are level with it.
That order comes from real-world voice agent calls, where getting the conversation right predicts how a call ends more strongly than speed does. The latency points come from the same calls: replying faster than about 2 seconds made no measurable difference, and calls went measurably worse once the agent took more than about 3 seconds to reply.
Stacks and speech-to-speech
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Task completionscenario_adherence_check | 23% | 100% | 80% |
| An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy. On a full sweep, a cascade's figure is 25% what its own calls (20 or more) measured and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice, the same split for every stack, so a lucky run does not lead. Where the sweep is too small for that, and for a speech-to-speech model, the figure is the stack's own. In an industry a stack has a handful of calls, so a cascade's figure there is what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry's calls, and a speech-to-speech model's is its own calls there. How a particular pairing beats or misses its parts shows on the main board, where each stack has all of its calls. | |||
Response timeresponse_time | 18% | 2.0 s | 6.0 s |
| In real calls, replying faster than 2 s made no measurable difference, and calls went worse past 3 s. | |||
Instruction followinginstruction_follow | 14% | 5.0 / 5 | 3.0 / 5 |
| Every model scores between 3 and 5 on the judge's 1 to 5 scale, so that is the range. | |||
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate | 14% | 0.5% | 3% |
| At 0.5% the best transcribers change the meaning of one word in two hundred on phone audio; at 3% one word in thirty sends the agent the wrong way. | |||
Tool usetool_use | 14% | 100% | 50% |
| An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on. | |||
Time to first wordtime_to_first_word | 5% | 1.0 s | 4.0 s |
| A greeting within 1 s sounds natural; 4 s of silence sounds like a dead line. | |||
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy | 5% | 100% | 60% |
| Reading a code, amount or date wrong breaks the task it was for; the weakest voices get two in five wrong. | |||
Word error ratetts_word_error_rate | 5% | 2% | 12% |
| At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong. | |||
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check | 5% | 100% | 80% |
| A voice that changes speaker on one call in five is not one a business can put its name to. | |||
Shown, not scored: Turn budget, Barge-in handlingbarge_in_yield_appropriateness, Human-likenessvoice_human_likeness
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per task
Language model
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Task completionscenario_adherence_check | 36% | 100% | 80% |
| An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy. | |||
Tool usetool_use | 27% | 100% | 50% |
| An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on. | |||
Instruction followinginstruction_follow | 18% | 5.0 / 5 | 3.0 / 5 |
| Every model scores between 3 and 5 on the judge's 1 to 5 scale, so that is the range. | |||
Time to first tokenllm_time_to_first_token | 18% | 0.50 s | 2.00 s |
| Under 0.5 s is not noticeable; at 2 s the first token alone takes two thirds of the 3 s past which real calls go worse. | |||
Shown, not scored: Prompt cache hitsllm_prompt_cache_hit_rate
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call
Speech-to-Text
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate | 71% | 0.5% | 3% |
| At 0.5% the best transcribers change the meaning of one word in two hundred on phone audio; at 3% one word in thirty sends the agent the wrong way. | |||
Time to final transcriptstt_time_to_final_transcript | 29% | 1.00 s | 2.50 s |
| The fastest transcribers finish in about 1 s; past 2.5 s the transcript alone uses most of a natural reply time. | |||
Shown, not scored: Word error ratestt_word_error_rate
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call
Text-to-Speech
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy | 38% | 100% | 60% |
| Reading a code, amount or date wrong breaks the task it was for; the weakest voices get two in five wrong. | |||
Word error ratetts_word_error_rate | 25% | 2% | 12% |
| At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong. | |||
Time to first audio bytetts_time_to_first_byte | 25% | 0.20 s | 1.50 s |
| Under 0.2 s is not noticeable; 1.5 s is half the point where calls go worse. | |||
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check | 13% | 100% | 80% |
| A voice that changes speaker on one call in five is not one a business can put its name to. | |||
Shown, not scored: Human-likenessvoice_human_likeness
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call
Factor in price and cost takes 25% of the score; the other weights keep their proportions. Price is scored on a log scale, so each doubling costs the same points.
A figure listed as shown, not scored is on the section’s boards and outside its score. Where a section has not collected a scored figure yet, the others share its weight.
Every call recorded and judged
Every call is recorded. Judge models score each transcript for the outcome and the conversation, and the timings come from the recording. Every figure links to the calls behind it.
Roark is on both sides of every call: it plays the caller, so it keeps the exact text its caller said, and it runs the agent under test, so it sees what the agent’s transcriber heard and what its model wrote for its voice. The transcript and voice figures come from lining those up, with no hand-made transcript in between. Each carries a margin from the synthetic voice or Roark’s transcriber in the loop. Every model faces the same ones under the same conditions, so the figures compare models on the same calls through the same voice and the same ear, though those slips need not fall evenly on each model. The rates will not match a vendor’s figure on a curated set; read them against each other.
An example: one call from this sweep
Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD, 30 October 2026. Highlighted turns are the ones that affected a score. Every stack's report links to its calls.
See how your own agent compares
Roark runs the same kind of calls against your agent, on your scenarios, with the same scoring.
Rank on Roark score
#498of 655 stacks
43 / 100
Leader AssemblyAI Universal-3.5 Pro + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + ElevenLabs Turbo v2.5, 70 / 100
Where it ranks
Its models
Task completion
Task completion
How much of the caller’s task the agent completed: the share of the scenario’s checks a judge model found met in the transcript, averaged over calls. Before v1.3, the share of calls judged 4 or better out of 5.
#498 of 662 on the board · best 99%
Flow adherence
How closely the agent followed the intended conversation flow, judged per call. 5 = fully followed.
#100 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5
Instruction following
How well the agent stuck to the instructions in its own prompt. 5 = followed throughout.
#13 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5
Turn-taking
Barge-in handling
When the caller interrupts, how often the agent made the right call: yielding to a real correction, and holding the floor through a filler.
#1 of 347 on the board · best 100%
Incorrect interruptions
How often the agent interrupted the caller when it should have kept listening.
#1 of 662 on the board · best 0%
Overtalk
Share of the conversation where both sides were speaking over each other.
#340 of 662 on the board · best 0.0%
Agent self-cutoffs
Times the agent cut its own sentence off mid-word.
#1 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
Speech-to-Text
Semantic word error rate
The caller's words the agent's transcriber got wrong in a way that changes the meaning, as a judge reads each difference.
#215 of 648 on the board · best 0.0%
Word error rate
The caller's words the agent's transcriber missed, changed or invented, against what the caller actually said.
#335 of 648 on the board · best 1.2%
Text-to-Speech
Readback accuracy
Share of the codes, amounts, dates and phone numbers the agent wrote that its voice read out correctly. One wrong digit is a miss.
#274 of 603 on the board · best 100%
Word error rate
The share of the words the agent wrote that its voice dropped or changed, read back from Roark’s transcription of the recording; the same transcriber hears every voice.
#321 of 648 on the board · best 1.9%
Voice
Human-likeness
How human the agent's voice sounds, scored by an audio model on intonation, rhythm and expressiveness. 5 = hard to tell from a person.
#330 of 660 on the board · best 4.3 / 5
Voice consistency
Share of calls where every line the agent spoke was the same speaker, with no change of speaker, gender or language voice partway. It checks who is speaking, not how they sound.
Not scored by this sweep.
#1 of 660 on the board · best 100%
Latency
Response time
The silence between the caller finishing and the agent starting to speak, measured from the recording on every turn of the call.
#600 of 661 on the board · best 1.85 s
Time to first word
How long the caller waits before the agent first speaks after pickup.
#644 of 662 on the board · best 0.45 s
Latency spikes
Turns where the response took far longer than the rest of the conversation.
#568 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
By industry
| Industry | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare | 83% | 4.86 s | — |
| Home services | 85% | 5.00 s | — |
| Insurance | 93% | 5.59 s | — |
| Customer support | 95% | 5.17 s | — |
By caller
| Caller | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| US English, quiet line | 96% | 5.19 s | — |
| Spanish-accented English, city street | 96% | 5.18 s | — |
| Indian English, busy café | 85% | 4.55 s | — |
| Southern US, flustered, crying baby | 96% | 5.06 s | — |
| Fast and interrupting, construction outside | 71% | 5.14 s | 100% |
The calls behind the numbers
Customer support
AGENTBrightwave Internet support, this is Alex. What’s going on with your service?
CUSTOMERYeah. Sorry. It's a little loud here. My baby's fussing in the background. So my Internet's been down for a couple hours now, and I work from home. So I'm getting kinda anxious. There's a road crew digging up our street right outside. So I was wondering if that's what's causing it. I already rebooted the gateway twice and checked all the cables. The Internet light's blinking orange. Can you help me figure out what's going on?
AGENTNo problem at all—I understand how stressful this can be, especially with a little one around. I’ll check if there’s an outage in your area and run a quick line test to see what’s happening. Could you please provide your account number or the phone number on your Brightwave account?
CUSTOMERYeah. Sure. Let me grab it real quick. Sorry. I just wanna make sure I give you the right one. It's BW883017 Oh, wait. Sorry. Last digit is one. That's BW883011. Is that okay?
CUSTOMERHello?
CUSTOMEROh, sorry. Were you about to say something else? I just wanna make sure you've got everything you need from me. Is that account number alright?
AGENTThanks for checking in! Yes, your account number BW883011 is correct, and I’ve already started working on your issue.
AGENTThere’s no area outage reported, but I found your gateway wasn’t connecting properly. I just sent a reset to your gateway, and it’s now back online. Please give your devices about two minutes to reconnect. Let me know if your internet comes back up or if you still have any issues after a couple of minutes.
CUSTOMERK. Hang on just a sec.
CUSTOMERYeah. Looks like the Internet light just went solid white now. A relief. So how long should it usually take for all my devices to get back online? And, since I lost two hours of work time, can I get a credit for the downtime?
AGENTGreat to hear the Internet light is solid white—that means your connection is restored.
AGENTMost devices should reconnect within 1–2 minutes, but some may need a quick reboot or to be reselected on Wi-Fi. I've also applied a $10 credit to your account (BW883011) for the two hours of downtime. You'll see it on your next bill. If you have any more issues or questions, just let me know!
CUSTOMERI appreciate you doing that, but I lost two hours of work. I hate to ask, but is there any way you can make it more than $10? Sorry. I just wanna make sure it's fair. You know?
AGENTI completely understand where you’re coming from, and I want to make sure things are fair for you. However, our standard credit for downtime like this is $10. I’ve already applied that to your account, and unfortunately, I don’t have the ability to increase it further. If you feel you need more, you can reach out to our billing team, who may have additional options. If there’s anything else I can do on the technical side or if you have more questions, just let me know!
CUSTOMERAlright. I understand. Thanks for being upfront about it and for getting me back online so quick. I think that's all for now. I appreciate your help. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re very welcome! I’m glad we could get you back online quickly.
AGENTIf you ever need help again, just reach out. Have a great rest of your day and take care!
Healthcare
AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic, this is Alex. How can I help you today?
CUSTOMERHi. Yeah. I need to reschedule my dermatology appointment appointment for next Wednesday morning. I just got assigned a work shift that day, so I can't make it. My name is Lucia Ramirez. Can you help me move it to a later time? I can only come off at 3PM.
AGENTI can help you with that, Lucia. To get started, could you please provide your date of birth for verification?
CUSTOMERSure. It's 03/07/1948. Sorry. No. 1984. March seventeen.
CUSTOMERHello?
CUSTOMERYes. Right. Go ahead.
AGENTThanks for waiting, Lucia. Your dermatology appointment with Dr. Okafor is currently scheduled for next Wednesday at 9:15 AM. You mentioned you’re only available after 3 PM. Looking at Dr. Okafor’s next available slots after your shift, I see:
- Tuesday at 345 PM
- Thursday at 410 PM
There aren’t any open times on Wednesday afternoon, but would you like to move your appointment to Tuesday at 345 PM or Thursday at 4:10 PM instead? Let me know which works best for you.
CUSTOMERTuesdays don't work for me after all. I have to pick up my daughter What about Friday? There anything available then?
AGENTOn Friday, Dr. Okafor has an opening at 11:30 AM. Unfortunately, there are no Friday afternoon slots available.
AGENTWould you like to reschedule for Thursday at 4:10 PM, or would you prefer to keep looking for another date or provider?
CUSTOMERThursday at 04:10PM works for me. Let's move it to that slot. Yeah. Thursday at 04:10PM is good. Please book that one. Oh, is there a fee for changing the appointment?
AGENTYour dermatology appointment with Dr. Okafor is now rescheduled for Thursday at 4:10 PM. Your confirmation code is RVB-3M8P2. Please arrive 15 minutes early with your photo ID and insurance card.
CUSTOMEROkay. Got it. Where should I park when I come in?
AGENTYou can park for free in Lot C, with the entrance on River Road. If you need more directions or have other questions, just let me know!
CUSTOMERThanks. Oh, does doctor Rokafur Aetna insurance?
AGENTI don't have access to insurance acceptance information for specific providers. To confirm if Dr. Okafor accepts Aetna insurance, please call the clinic’s front desk directly or check with your insurance provider. If you need their contact number or have other questions, I’m happy to help!
CUSTOMERNo. That's alright. So just to confirm, Thursday at 04:10PM and the confirmation code is RVB3MHP2. Right?
AGENTAlmost correct! Your appointment is on Thursday at 4:10 PM, and your confirmation code is RVB-3M8P2. If you need anything else or want to double-check details, just let me know!
CUSTOMEROkay. That's clear. Thank you.
AGENTYou’re very welcome, Lucia! If you need anything else, feel free to reach out. Have a great day!
Home services
AGENTCopperline Home Services, this is Alex. What can I help you with?
CUSTOMERHi, Alex. I need someone out right away. There's a burst pipe under my kitchen sink. Water's spreading across the floor, and it's heading toward a power strip. What's the fastest way to get help?
AGENTThank you for calling. First, for safety: please immediately shut off your home's main water supply if you haven’t already. If water is near the power strip or any electrical outlet, keep everyone away from that area and do not touch electrical devices.
AGENTIf you can safely unplug the power strip without stepping in water, do so; otherwise, leave it and stay clear. Now, I’ll get you the quickest available emergency visit.
CUSTOMERMhmm.
CUSTOMERYeah. That's what I need. How much will this visit cost?
AGENTOur emergency visit fee is $149, or $99 if you’re a Copperline Care member.
AGENTPayment is by card or check when the work is completed.
CUSTOMERUh-huh.
CUSTOMERThere any way someone can come before two? I really need this taken care of as soon as possible.
AGENTI understand how urgent this is. The soonest available emergency arrival window is 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM today. Would you like me to book that slot for you right now? If anything earlier opens up, I can note your request and try to get you the absolute fastest possible visit.
CUSTOMERFuck, yeah.
CUSTOMERBook the two to 4PM slot. Just give me the earliest one you have. Who's coming out, and how will I know they're on the way?
AGENTYou’re booked for the 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM emergency window. Technician Dana will be coming out.
CUSTOMERYeah.
CUSTOMERThat's good. My callback number is (503) 555-0139. No. 0193. Will the text go to that? What's the ticket number for this visit?
AGENTThank you for the update. Yes, Dana will text (503) 555-0139 about 30 minutes before arrival. Your ticket number for this visit is CPL-58210.
CUSTOMERMhmm.
CUSTOMERActually, I moved to 4 D last month, not 4 B. It's 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4 D. The date code is pound 2719. And my callback is (503) 555-0193. That's correct. Right?
AGENTThank you for clarifying.
CUSTOMERUh-huh.
CUSTOMERRight. Go ahead. Just need to hear the ticket number, then I'll let you go.
AGENTCertainly. Your ticket number is CPL-58210.
CUSTOMERGot it. Thanks. That's all I need. Goodbye.
AGENTYou're welcome. Help is on the way. If anything changes or you need further assistance, call us anytime. Goodbye.
Insurance
AGENTNorthgate Mutual claims, this is Alex. Are you somewhere safe right now?
CUSTOMERYes. I am, standing next to my car on the sidewalk. Nobody is hurt.
AGENTI'm glad to hear that everyone is safe. Let's get started with your claim. Could you please provide your policy number and your last name so I can verify your policy?
CUSTOMERYes. My policy number is ND41903. No. Sorry. Last one is 2. My last name is Ramirez.
AGENTThank you, Ms. Ramirez. I have your policy number as ND41902. Can you tell me when and where the accident happened, and briefly describe what happened? Also, do you have the other driver's name, their insurer, and license plate, and did the police attend or provide a report?
CUSTOMERNo. My policy number is That's ND4471902. So the accident happened about twenty minutes ago, at S E 5th Avenue and Alder Street. Was stopped at a red light, and another car hit the back of my car. The back bumper is crushed and the rear wheel is rubbing, so I cannot drive the car. The other driver is Kevin Lund. His insurer is Pacific Shore. The license plate is 7KX like x-ray, R214. The police did not come, and there is no report.
AGENTThank you for clarifying your policy number. Here’s what I have:
- Policy numberND4471902
- License plate of the other vehicle7KXR214
- Claim numberNGM-904417
Your claim is open and assigned to Priya Shah, who will contact you within one business day. A tow truck from Eastside Towing is on its way to SE 5th Avenue and Alder Street, with an estimated arrival in about 45 minutes.
AGENTYour vehicle will be taken to our partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. Is there anything else you need right now, or any corrections to what I read back to you?
CUSTOMERYeah. Just a quick question. How much do I have to pay Is there a deductible for this? But he hit me, so I should not have to pay that. Right? Also, do I get a rental car while mine is being repaired? And is my premium going to go up because of this?
AGENTHere are the details from your coverage:
- Your collision deductible is $500.
CUSTOMEROkay. But since he hit me, I should not have to pay that. Right? What about the rental car? Do I get one? Also, is my premium going to increase after this?
AGENTBased on your policy:
- Collision DeductibleIf you use your own collision coverage for repairs, you will need to pay the $500 deductible up front.
CUSTOMERUh-huh. So if Pacific Shore takes responsibility, I would not have to pay the deductible. And would they cover their come from my policy?
AGENTThat's correct.
CUSTOMERAlright. Got it.
CUSTOMERRight? Go ahead.
AGENTThank you, Ms. Ramirez. Just to confirm your details:
- Policy numberND4471902
- License plate of the other vehicle7KXR214
- Claim numberNGM-904417
Your collision coverage has a $500 deductible, which you would pay if you use your own policy for repairs. However, if Pacific Shore (the other driver’s insurer) accepts responsibility, you may not have to pay the deductible, and your damages could be covered by their policy instead. Your policy also provides a rental carup to $40 per day for up to 30 days, starting today. As for your premium, I cannot say for sure if it will increase—this depends on the outcome of the claim and is determined by our underwriting department after review. A tow truck is on its way, and your adjuster, Priya Shah, will contact you within one business day to help with next steps. Is there anything else I can assist you with right now?