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
#340of 655 stacks
47 / 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.
#590 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.
Not scored by this sweep.
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.
#1 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.
#345 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.
#271 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.
#475 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.
#630 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.
#429 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.
#346 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.
#480 of 662 on the board · best 0.45 s
Latency spikes
Turns where the response took far longer than the rest of the conversation.
#346 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
By industry
| Industry | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare | 95% | 4.07 s | — |
| Home services | 87% | 3.70 s | — |
| Insurance | 93% | 3.55 s | — |
| Customer support | 71% | 3.67 s | — |
By caller
| Caller | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| US English, quiet line | 96% | 3.46 s | — |
| Spanish-accented English, city street | 95% | 4.24 s | — |
| Indian English, busy café | 75% | 3.66 s | — |
| Southern US, flustered, crying baby | 96% | 4.26 s | — |
| Fast and interrupting, construction outside | 75% | 3.74 s | — |
The calls behind the numbers
Customer support
AGENTBrightwave Internet support, this is Alex. What’s going on with your service?
CUSTOMERHey, Alex. Yeah. So I'm calling because my internet has been down for about two hours now. I work from home and there's a road crew digging up the street outside. I already rebooted the gateway twice and checked every cable. The internet light is blinking orange. Can you check if the road work is causing the outage? My account number is BW883017. Sorry, last digit is one.
AGENTI’ve got you pulled up under account BW883017, thanks for that. There’s no area outage or maintenance showing for your address, so it’s not a known street‑level cut on our side. I ran a line test: your signal to the gateway looks good, but it showed as not registered, so I pushed a remote reset from here. It’s now showing as registered and online on my end. The orange light
CUSTOMERYeah, the orange light just went solid white. Now, how long until my devices reconnect?
AGENTGood—that solid white light means the gateway is back online. Most devices will reconnect within 1–3 minutes. A few notes: - Anything that was already on and using Wi‑Fi should usually auto‑reconnect. - If something doesn’t come back on its own after a couple of minutes, toggle Wi‑Fi off/on or disconnect/reconnect
CUSTOMERRight. Got it. So can you add a credit for the downtime? I lost two hours of work.
AGENTI can do that. I’ve added a $10.00 service credit on account BW883017 for the ~2 hours of unplanned downtime. You’ll see it on your next bill. If the connection drops again—especially with that road work going on—let me know right away and we’ll recheck the line and get a tech scheduled if needed.
CUSTOMEROkay, but I lost two hours of work. Can you make it more than $10?
AGENTI understand why you’re asking, especially if you’re hourly or on deadlines. I applied the standard unplanned-outage credit we’re allowed to issue directly, which is $10.00, and I don’t have the ability to increase that amount from here. What I can do is note on your account that this was work‑from‑home–impacting downtime tied to nearby road work and the gateway being offline for about two hours. If you want to pursue a larger adjustment, billing can review that note and the outage history and let you know what else is possible. Would you like me to add that note and give you the best number and hours for billing, or do you prefer chat/email options?
CUSTOMERYeah. Please add the note. Go ahead and give me the phone number for billing.
AGENTI’ve added a note on account BW883017 that you had about two hours of work-from-home impact today due to service being down while road work was occurring outside, and that a standard $10 credit was already applied but you’re requesting a larger adjustment. You can reach Billing at 1-800-555-0142, Monday–Friday, 8:00 AM–7:00 PM local time. They’ll be able to review the account notes and your recent connectivity
CUSTOMEROkay. That's clear. I'll call billing if I need more help. Thanks for your help today, Alex. Goodbye.
Healthcare
AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic, this is Alex. How can I help you today?
CUSTOMERYes. Hello. I am having one dermatology appointment next Wednesday morning, but I need to reschedule it. I have a work shift then, so I can only come after 3 p.m.. Could you help me move it to a later time? My name is Arjun Mehta.
AGENTI can help with that. I’ll just need to verify your record first. Please provide your full date of birth (YYYY-MM-DD),
CUSTOMERMarch 17th, 1948. Sorry. No. 1984. March 17th, 1984.
AGENTI’ve found your appointment, Arjun Mehta, date of birth March 17th, 1984. You’re currently booked with Dr. Okafor in dermatology next Wednesday at 9:15 a.m. at Main Campus, Building B. Looking at Dr. Okafor’s schedule after 3 p.m., here are the options I can offer you: - Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. There’s also a Friday slot at 11:30 a.m. if midday works, but it’s before 3 p.m. Which of these would you like to move your appointment to?
CUSTOMERTuesdays do not work after all, because I am picking up my daughter. What about Friday after 3 p.m.? Is there any slot available then? If not, I can take Thursday at 4:10 p.m..
CUSTOMERHello.
AGENTI’m here. Thanks for your patience. For Dr. Okafor, I’m currently seeing these openings: - Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. - Friday at 11:30 a.m. There are no Friday slots after 3 p.m. showing as available, so the only option that fits your “after 3 p.m.” requirement is: - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. Would you like me to move your dermatology appointment to Thursday at 4:10 p.m. with Dr. Okafor at Main Campus, Building B?
CUSTOMERYes. Kindly do the needful. Please move my appointment to Thursday at 4:10 p.m. with Doctor Okafor. Can you confirm if there is any fee for changing the appointment?
AGENTI’ve moved your dermatology visit with Dr. Okafor to Thursday at 4:10 p.m. at Main Campus, Building B. Here are the details I have for you: - Name: Arjun Mehta. - Date of birth: March 17th, 1984. - New appointment: Thursday at 4:10 p.m. with Dr. Okafor. - Confirmation code: RVB-3M8P2. - Arrival instructions: Please arrive 15 minutes early with a photo ID and your insurance card. Regarding fees for changing the appointment: The clinic’s policy is that changes made more than 24 hours before the appointment are free. Changes made within 24 hours of the appointment carry a $40 fee. Since we’ve moved your appointment ahead of time, you should not be charged a change fee, as long as this was done more than 24 hours before your original visit next Wednesday. Would you like me to repeat any of the details or the confirmation code RVB-3M8P2?
CUSTOMERThat's. No. That's clear. Thank you. Where should I park when I arrive at the main campus building? Be.
AGENTFor your appointment at the main campus: - You can park in Lot C, which is the free patient parking lot. - The entrance to Lot C is off River Road. Once you park in Lot C, follow the signs for Building B and the main clinic entrance. If you’d like, I can also repeat your appointment time and confirmation code.
CUSTOMERThat's fine. I have those details. One more thing. Does Doctor Okafor accept Aetna insurance?
AGENTI don’t have access to provider-by-provider insurance panels, so I can’t safely confirm that for Dr. Okafor. To verify Aetna coverage, please: 1) Call our main scheduling line and ask if Dr. Okafor is in network for Aetna, or. 2) Check your Aetna member portal or call the number on your Aetna card and ask if Riverbend Health Clinic / Dr. Okafor (dermatology) is in network. If you’d like, I can summarize your appointment details once more before you go.
CUSTOMERNo need. That's all clear. Thanks for your help Alex. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re very welcome, Mr. Mehta. Take care, and goodbye.
Home services
AGENTCopperline Home Services, this is Alex. What can I help you with?
CUSTOMERYeah. Hi. I've got a burst pipe under my kitchen sink, and there's water spreading across the floor toward a power strip. I need someone out here fast.
AGENTThanks for telling me right away—let’s get you safe first. 1. Stay away from that power strip and any outlets the water is reaching. 2. If you can do this safely without stepping in water: - Unplug the power strip by pulling the plug from the wall, only if the outlet area is completely dry. 3. If water is already at the outlet or you’re not sure: - Do not touch the strip, cords,
CUSTOMERGot it. Yep, I understand. I'll stay clear. Can we get someone out here now?
AGENTWe can get an emergency plumber out today between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM. Because this is an emergency visit and you’re a Copperline Care member, the callout fee will be $99. That covers the dispatch and diagnosis; any repair work or parts would be quoted on-site before they proceed. Are you okay with that fee so I can lock in the 2–4 PM emergency window? While you answer, I want to be sure you’re as safe as possible: - Keep everyone away from that area with the water and the power strip. - If you can reach it without going through water, turn off the water under the sink (the small shutoff valves on the hot/cold lines). - If that’s not possible or the leak is still heavy, and you can reach it safely, turn off the main water to the house. Let me just confirm your details: - Service address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4B. - Best callback number:
CUSTOMERGot it.
CUSTOMERAh! Sorry, I moved last month. It's unit 4D, not four B. If the callback is (503) 555-0139.
CUSTOMERNo. 0193.
AGENTThanks for the updates—I’ve got everything corrected. You’re all set. Here are the details: - Service address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D. - Callback number: (503) 555-0193. - Appointment window: today between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM. - Visit type: emergency plumbing. - Callout fee (Copperline Care member): $99. - Ticket number: CPL-58210. The technician
CUSTOMERGot it.
CUSTOMERWho's coming? Out! And how will I know? They're on the way?
AGENTYou’ll have one of our emergency plumbers out—here’s how you’ll know and what to expect: - Your visit is confirmed for today, 2:00–4:00 PM, under ticket CPL-58210. - The technician will text your callback number, (503) 555-0193,
CUSTOMEROne nine. Three. Right before arrival.
AGENTCorrect, I’ve got that: (503) 555-0193. Here’s how you’ll know they’re on the way: - The technician will text that number about 30 minutes before arrival. - The text will identify Copperline Home Services and reference your ticket: CPL-58210. - Your window is still today between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM.
CUSTOMERRight.
CUSTOMERAll right.
CUSTOMERThanks for getting. This set up. That's everything. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re welcome—glad we got
AGENTyou taken care of. If anything changes with the leak or the power before the tech arrives, stay clear of the water and call us right away. Goodbye.
Insurance
AGENTNorthgate Mutual claims, this is Alex. Are you somewhere safe right now?
CUSTOMERYes, I am safe. I am standing next to my car at the moment. The accident happened about 20 minutes ago.
AGENTI’m glad you’re safe. Is anyone injured at the scene—either in your car or the other vehicle—or is anyone in any danger right now? If anyone is hurt or in danger, please hang up and call 911
CUSTOMERNo, nobody is hurt and there is no danger here. It was just the cars involved, not the people.
AGENTUnderstood, thanks for letting me know. Let’s get your claim started. I’ll need to look up your policy first. 1) What is your auto policy number? 2) And the policyholder’s last name?
CUSTOMERYes. My policy number is NG4471903. Oh sorry, last one is two. The policy holders last name is meta.
AGENTThank you. I’ve located your policy ending in 1902 under the name Meta for a 2021 Honda CR‑V. Next, I’ll collect the accident details so we can open your claim. 1) What is the exact time and date of the accident? 2) Where did it happen? 3) Can you briefly
CUSTOMERSure. The accident happened. About 20 minutes ago today. I was stopped at a red light at SW fifth Avenue and Alder Street. Another car hit the back of my vehicle. The back bumper is crushed and the rear wheel is rubbing, so I cannot drive it. Police did not come.
AGENTI’ve got everything started for you, and I’m glad you’re not hurt. Here’s what I have so far—please listen for anything that needs correcting: - Policy number: NG4471902. - Vehicle: 2021 Honda CR‑V. - Accident: Today, about 20 minutes ago, at SW 5th Avenue and Alder Street. - Description: You were stopped at a red light when another vehicle hit the rear of your Honda. The rear bumper is crushed and the rear wheel is rubbing, so the car can’t be driven. - No injuries
CUSTOMERAha! That's.
AGENTI’ll slow down and go step by step with
CUSTOMERYes, that's right.
AGENTThanks for confirming.
CUSTOMEROkay. Go ahead.
AGENTI’ll walk you through what’s already in place and what happens next. First, here are the key details I have on file—stop
CUSTOMERRight. So I need to know. How much.
AGENTI can help with that. I’ll go over only what I’m allowed to see on your policy. For policy NG4471902, here’s
CUSTOMEROkay. Go ahead.
AGENTHere’s what your policy shows for this claim on policy NG4471902: - Collision deductible: $500. - This
CUSTOMERThat's right.
AGENTThanks for confirming. Let me also give you your claim and tow details so you have everything in one place: - Policy number: NG4471902. - Claim number:
CUSTOMERBut he hit me so. Should not.
AGENTYou’re saying, “He hit me, so I shouldn’t have to pay,” and I understand why you feel that way. Here’s what I can tell you from your policy information: - Your policy’s collision deductible
CUSTOMERThat's correct. So will. Rental car.
AGENTOn your policy NG4471902, you do have rental coverage. From what I see:
CUSTOMERGot it. And will my premiums go. Up because of this? Also?
AGENTI’m glad you asked. I need to be honest: I don’t have access to future rating or premium decisions, so I can’t say for sure whether your
CUSTOMERAha. That's good. So I need a tow truck. Where will we take. Him and.
AGENTYou’re all set for a tow—let me lay out what’s already arranged and where it’s going. Here’s what I have in the system: - Policy number: NG4471902.
CUSTOMERAll right. Understood.
AGENTGood. Let me read everything back clearly so you have it handy, and you can stop me if anything’s wrong. - Policy number: NG4471902. -
CUSTOMERYes. Go ahead. I need to. Make sure.
AGENTLet’s go through everything clearly so you can double‑check it. Here’s what I have on your claim: - Policy number: NG4471902. - Vehicle:
CUSTOMERThat's exactly right.
AGENTGood, I’m glad everything matches what you remember. Before we wrap up, I want to clearly read back the key items you’ll need, and then I’ll answer anything else you want to double‑check: - Policy number: NG4471902.
CUSTOMERYes. That's correct.
AGENTLet me give you the three key numbers and details you’ll want to be sure about: - Your policy number: NG4471902. - Your claim number:
CUSTOMERYes. That's right.
AGENTNGM-904417.
AGENTPerfect. I’ll summarize everything
CUSTOMEROkay. I'm ready. Please.
CUSTOMERWrite me the claim number and then I'll. Be all set.
AGENTYour claim number is: NGM-904417
CUSTOMERHello?
AGENTI’m still here with you. Your auto claim number is: NGM-904417.