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
#392of 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.
#420 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.
#337 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.
#477 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
Understanding & effort
Caller effort
How hard the caller had to work: repeating themselves, correcting, re-explaining. 1 = effortless.
Not scored by this sweep.
Repeated-info loops
Times per call the agent re-asked for something the caller had already given.
#180 of 494 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.
#524 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.
#549 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.
#575 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.
#641 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.
#76 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.
#101 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.
#408 of 662 on the board · best 0.45 s
Latency spikes
Turns where the response took far longer than the rest of the conversation.
#54 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
By industry
| Industry | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare | 86% | 3.70 s | — |
| Home services | 85% | 2.61 s | — |
| Insurance | 98% | 2.83 s | — |
| Customer support | 93% | 3.06 s | — |
By caller
| Caller | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| US English, quiet line | 93% | 2.77 s | — |
| Spanish-accented English, city street | 91% | 3.06 s | — |
| Indian English, busy café | 96% | 3.35 s | — |
| Southern US, flustered, crying baby | 87% | 3.27 s | — |
| Fast and interrupting, construction outside | 84% | 2.96 s | 93% |
The calls behind the numbers
Customer support
AGENTBrightwave Internet support, this is Alex. What’s
AGENTgoing on with your service?
CUSTOMERHi, Alex. My internet's been down for about two hours now.
CUSTOMERI 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 could be the cause? My account number is BW883017.
CUSTOMERSorry, last digit is one.
AGENTThanks for the correction on the account number — I’ve got you under BW883011. Here’s what I’m seeing and what I did: - No area outage or maintenance is showing for your address, so the road work isn’t on our official maintenance schedule. - Your line signal to the gateway looks good, but the gateway had dropped its registration. - I’ve just sent a remote reset to your Brightwave BX7. It’s now showing as registered and online on our side. A few things on your end: 1. Give it about 2 minutes for everything to fully come back up. 2. Check the gateway: - The internet light should turn solid (not blinking orange) once it’s fully online. 3. Test from a device: - Try a speedtest or open a couple of websites. - If you use VPN for work, test both with VPN off and then on. If after 2–3 minutes: - The light is still blinking orange, or - Your devices can’t get online, tell me: - Whether you’re wired or Wi‑Fi when you test - What the lights on the gateway look like (power, broadband, internet) Given there’s digging in the street,
AGENTif the connection drops again or doesn’t
CUSTOMERDe.
CUSTOMERRight now the internet light just went solid white. How long should it take for my devices to reconnect?
AGENTSolid white is what we want—that means the connection is up again. Most devices should reconnect within 1–2 minutes on their own. If they don’t: - Wi‑Fi devices: - Toggle Wi‑Fi off/on, then reconnect to your usual network. - If it asks for a password again, use the same Wi‑Fi password as before. - Wired devices (Ethernet): - Unplug and replug the Ethernet cable once, then test a website. Go ahead and try a couple of sites or a speed test. If anything still isn’t getting online after about 2–3 minutes,
AGENTtell me which device and whether it’s on
CUSTOMEROkay, I'll check my devices in a minute while I have you. Can I get a credit for the downtime? I lost two hours of work while the internet was out.
AGENTI’ve added a service credit for the downtime on your account BW883011. - Credit amount: $10.00 - It will appear on: your next bill You don’t need to do anything else for that; it’s already applied. While we’re still on: once you’ve checked a device or two, let me know if everything is back online or if any specific device
AGENTis still having trouble.
CUSTOMERI appreciate that, but I lost two hours of work. Can you make it more than $10?
AGENTI understand why you’re asking, especially if this hit you during work hours. I’m glad you reached out right away. On my side, I’ve already applied the standard outage credit we’re allowed to give directly, which is the $10 you’ll see on your next bill. I don’t have the ability to increase that amount from here. If you want to push for more than the standard credit, the options are: - Contact Billing/Customer Care by phone or chat and explain the impact on your work; they have more flexibility than technical support, especially for long‑time customers. - If this becomes a pattern (multiple similar outages), we can document each incident on your account,
AGENTwhich strengthens the case for a larger adjustment from Billing.
CUSTOMERYes. They're coming back online now.
CUSTOMERThanks for your help, Alex.
CUSTOMERGoodbye.
AGENTGlad to hear everything’s coming back online.
AGENTYou’re all set, and that $10.00 credit is on your next bill for account BW883011. Take care, and have a good rest of your day.
Healthcare
AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic, this is Alex. How can I help you today?
CUSTOMERHi.
CUSTOMERSorry. I've got a baby crying over here, so I'm a little flustered.
CUSTOMERUm, my name's Wade Carter, and I need to move my dermatology appointment next Wednesday morning. I just found out I've got a work shift then.
CUSTOMERAnd I can only come after 3 p.m..
CUSTOMERIs that something y'all can help with?
AGENTI can definitely help with that. First, I need to verify your record.
AGENTWhat’s your date of birth, Wade?
CUSTOMERUh, yeah. So it's March 17th, 1948.
CUSTOMEROh, wait. Sorry. No, I got that mixed up.
CUSTOMERIt's 1984.
CUSTOMERMarch 17th, 1984.
CUSTOMERIs that okay?
AGENTYes, that’s perfect, thank you: March 17, 1984 for Wade Carter—you’re all set on verification. I see your dermatology visit with Dr. Okafor next Wednesday at 9:15 a.m. You mentioned you can only come after 3 p.m. and want to move that appointment. Looking at Dr. Okafor’s schedule starting next Wednesday, the options that fit “after 3 p.m.” are: - Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. There’s also a Friday 11:30 a.m. slot, but that’s before 3 p.m., so it doesn’t match what
AGENTyou asked for. Which of these would you like to
CUSTOMEROh. Uh, sorry. I just realized.
CUSTOMERTuesdays don't work after all.
CUSTOMERI have to pick up my daughter, then.
CUSTOMERWhat about Friday?
CUSTOMERIs there anything after 3 p.m. on Friday?
CUSTOMERIf not, I guess Thursday at 4:10 p.m. would work, but, um.
CUSTOMERCould you check Friday for me first?
AGENTI checked Friday for you—right now the only slot Dr. Okafor has on Friday is 11:30 a.m., and there’s nothing after 3 p.m. that day. Given what you said, the next option that fits your schedule is: - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. Do you want me to move your dermatology appointment from next Wednesday at 9:15 a.m. to Thursday at 4:10 p.m.?
CUSTOMERYeah. Uh. That's the only one that'll work. Please, can you move it to Thursday at 4:10 p.m.?
CUSTOMERSorry if I'm making this complicated. Just want to make sure everything's right.
CUSTOMERIs that okay?
AGENTYou’re not making it complicated at all—totally understandable, especially with a baby and work in the mix. I’ve gone ahead and moved it. Here’s the new appointment, reading it back clearly: - Patient: Wade Carter - Date of birth: March 17, 1984 - Provider: Dr. Okafor (Dermatology) - New day: Thursday - New time: 4:10 p.m. - Location: Main Campus, Building B - Confirmation code: RVB-3M8P2 The old appointment next Wednesday at 9:15 a.m. has been canceled and replaced with this new one. Arrival instructions from the clinic: please arrive 15 minutes early with a photo ID and your insurance card. Do you want me to repeat any of that,
AGENTor help with anything else while you’ve got me?
CUSTOMERThank
AGENTYou’re very welcome, Wade. Just to recap the key details once more, so you don’t have to worry about remembering wrong later: - Dermatology with Dr. Okafor - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. - Main Campus, Building B - Confirmation code: RVB-3M8P2 If you need to change it again or have questions about the visit, just let me know. Hope things calm down a bit for you and the baby.
CUSTOMERyou. That helps. A lot.
CUSTOMERThanks. I really appreciate
AGENTI’m glad it helped, and you’re very welcome. If you think of anything else you need—questions about the visit, parking, or changing the
CUSTOMERit. Can I ask real quick?
AGENTtime again—just reach out and I’ll take care of it. Take good care of yourself and the little one.
Home services
AGENTCopperline Home Services, this is Alex. What can I help
AGENTyou with?
CUSTOMERHello? Yes.
CUSTOMERI need urgent help. A pipe under my kitchen sink has burst.
CUSTOMERWater is spreading across the floor and it is heading toward a power strip. I have not shut the water off yet.
CUSTOMERCan you send someone right away?
AGENTThanks for telling me right away—let’s get you safe first. 1. Stay away from that power strip and any outlets the water might reach. - Do not touch the power strip or anything plugged into it. - Keep kids and pets out of the area. 2. Shut off the water immediately: - Look under the kitchen sink for two small shutoff valves (usually one for hot, one for cold). Turn both clockwise until they stop. - If you can’t find or turn those, go to your main water shutoff (often in a basement, garage, utility room, or outside by the street) and turn it clockwise to shut the whole house off. 3. If the water is already at the power strip or outlets and you can safely reach your main electrical panel without crossing water: - Go to your breaker panel and switch off the breakers for the kitchen or, if you’re unsure which, the main breaker. - If you would have to walk through water to reach the panel, do not do that—just keep everyone clear of the area. Please tell me: - Have you been able to shut off the water under the sink or at the main? - Has the water reached the power strip yet? Once you answer that, I’ll get an emergency plumber dispatched. I also need a few details to open your request: 1. Your full name 2. The service address (including unit number or gate
AGENTcode if there is one) 3. The best callback
CUSTOMERYes.
CUSTOMERThat's correct.
CUSTOMERThe pipe under my kitchen sink burst.
CUSTOMERWater was spreading toward the power strip.
CUSTOMERI have now shut the water off under the sink and it has stopped.
CUSTOMERThe water has not reached the power strip yet.
CUSTOMEREveryone is away from that area.
CUSTOMERMy name is Arjun Mehta. The address is 1480 Larkspur Avenue.
CUSTOMERUnit 4D.
CUSTOMERThe building gate code is pound 2719.
CUSTOMERMy callback number is 503.
CUSTOMER555.
CUSTOMER0139.
CUSTOMERNo.
CUSTOMER0193.
CUSTOMERKindly let me know how much the visit will cost before you send someone.
CUSTOMERAnd can anyone come before 2 p.m.?
AGENTThanks for getting the water shut off and keeping everyone clear—that’s exactly what you should’ve done. I’ve found you in our system as a Copperline Care member, and I’ve opened an emergency ticket. First, to your questions: - Earliest availability today: The first emergency arrival window we have is today from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. There’s nothing earlier showing as available before 2 p.m. - Cost for the visit (for you as a Copperline Care member): - Emergency callout fee: $99 - Payment: Card or check on completion. - Any additional repair costs (parts, extra labor) would be quoted by the technician on site before they proceed. If you’re okay with the $99 emergency callout and the 2:00–4:00 PM arrival window, I’ll lock that in right away. Here’s what I have on the ticket so far; please confirm everything is correct: - Name: Arjun Mehta - Service address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D - Gate code: #2719 - Callback number: 503-555-0193 - Issue: Burst pipe under kitchen sink; water stopped after shutting off under-sink valves; water did not reach power strip; everyone clear of the area. - Ticket number: CPL-58210 A couple of quick safety/cleanup
CUSTOMERYes.
CUSTOMERThat's all correct.
CUSTOMERKindly lock in the visit for. The 2 to 4 p.m. window, and I agree to the $99 call out fee. Who will be coming and how will I know they are on the way? And can you confirm the ticket number once more, please?
AGENTYou’re all set—thank you for confirming. I’ve locked in your emergency visit for today, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM, with the $99 emergency callout fee. Here are the details: - Ticket number: CPL-58210 - Service address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D - Gate code: #2719 - Callback number: 503-555-0193 Who will be coming and how you’ll know: - A Copperline plumber will be dispatched on your ticket. - You’ll receive a text message to 503-555-0193 about 30 minutes before arrival letting you know they’re on the way. - The technician will arrive within the 2:00–4:00 PM window and will confirm your name and address at the door. While you’re waiting: - Keep the under-sink valves closed.
CUSTOMERUnderstood.
CUSTOMERI have noted everything.
CUSTOMERThank you. For your help.
CUSTOMERGoodbye. Got
CUSTOMERit. Thank you for confirming everything. And for the.
AGENTYou’re
AGENTYou’re very welcome,
CUSTOMERInstructions. I'll look out for the message and keep everyone clear of the area.
CUSTOMERGoodbye.
AGENTYou’re welcome, Arjun. I’m glad you got the water shut off quickly and have everyone
AGENTclear of the area. Your visit is confirmed for today, 2:00–4:00 PM, under ticket number CPL-58210. You’ll get a text before the technician arrives. Take care, and goodbye.
Insurance
AGENTNorthgate Mutual claims, this is Alex. Are you somewhere
AGENTsafe right now?
CUSTOMERYeah. I'm safe.
CUSTOMERJust standing next to the car.
CUSTOMERCan we move quickly? There's construction right outside, and it's loud.
AGENTUnderstood, I’ll keep this quick. First, is anyone injured at all—either in your car or the
AGENTother car? Even minor pain or soreness.
CUSTOMERNo. Nobody's hurt. Not even saw.
CUSTOMERJust need to get this sorted fast.
AGENTGlad to hear no one’s hurt. I’ll move fast. First I need to find your policy. 1) What’s your auto policy number? 2) And the policyholder’s last name? Then I’ll ask when and where this happened, what happened, the other driver’s info, and whether police
AGENTcame. After that I can
CUSTOMERYep.
CUSTOMERGot it.
CUSTOMERPolicy number is NG4471903. No, sorry, last one is two, brooks.
CUSTOMERBROOKS.
CUSTOMERThis happened about 20 minutes ago at SW fifth Avenue and Alder Street. I was stopped at a red light. Another car hit the back of mine. The back bumper is crushed and the rear wheel rubs so I can't drive it. The other driver is Kevin Lund, insured with Pacific Shore plate 7KX like X-ray R 214.
CUSTOMERPolice did not come.
CUSTOMERCan you send a tow truck? And where will my car be taken?
CUSTOMERAlso, how much do I have to pay?
AGENTI’ve got everything I need and I’ll keep this tight so you can get out of the noise. First, reading key details back to you: - Policy number: NG4471902 - Other driver’s plate: 7KXR214 - I’ve opened a claim: NGM-904417 If any of that is off, tell me and I’ll fix it. ### Tow truck and where your car is going - I’ve sent a tow truck through our roadside service. - Company: Eastside Towing - ETA: about 45 minutes - They’ll take your 2021 Honda CR‑V to our Northgate partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. If you’d rather have it towed somewhere else (your own shop, dealership, home), tell me now and I can change the destination before they hook it up. ### What you’ll have to pay From your policy: - Collision deductible: $500 This is the amount you’re responsible for toward the repairs. The shop or the adjuster will handle that as the claim moves forward. - Towing: Towing is covered up to 25 miles, so as long as the tow is within that, you shouldn’t be paying the tow driver out of pocket. - Rental car: You have $40 per day for up to 30 days,
CUSTOMEROkay.
AGENTI’ve got everything started for you. I’ll keep this tight so you can
CUSTOMERYeah. Good.
CUSTOMERJust so I'm clear. He hit me, so I shouldn't have to pay that deductible. Right. And my premium go up.
CUSTOMERAlso, I need to make sure I have the claim number.
AGENTHere’s the claim info and what I can tell you about money, as clearly as possible. First, your claim number (writing this down is important): - Claim number: NGM-904417 Your policy number is NG4471902, and the other driver’s plate we have is 7KXR214. If any of that is wrong, tell me and I’ll correct it. --- ### Deductible and fault From your policy, you do have a $500 collision deductible. Whether you actually end up paying that depends on how the claim shakes out: - You were stopped at a red light and were rear‑ended. - In many cases like that, we pursue the other driver’s insurance. - If the other company accepts full liability and pays for the damage directly, you may not end up paying your deductible. - If we pay for your repairs under your collision coverage first, the $500 deductible would apply, and then we may try to recover it from the other insurer. If we recover it, you could get reimbursed.
CUSTOMERAll right. Got
AGENTLet me clear up what I can, and repeat the key numbers for you. 1) Your claim number - Claim number: NGM-904417 - Policy number: NG4471902 2) Deductible (the $500) - Your policy has a $500 collision deductible. - I can’t decide fault or waive the deductible myself. - What usually happens in a rear‑end like you described is: - We and the other insurance company review what happened. - If the other driver’s
CUSTOMERit. That's NGM904417.
AGENTcompany accepts full responsibility and pays for your damage, you may not end up paying that deductible. - If we pay for your repairs under your policy first, the $500 deductible applies, and then we may try to recover it from the other insurance. If we recover it, you could be reimbursed. The adjuster assigned to your claim will go over how this works in your specific case once they review everything. 3) Will your premium go up? - I’m not able to say whether your premium will change or by how much. - Any change would depend on the claim details, fault determination, and our underwriting rules. - Your adjuster or a billing/underwriting rep can explain that once the claim is further along. Before we wrap up, can you just confirm: - Policy number: NG4471902 - Claim number: NGM-904417 - Other driver’s plate: 7KXR214 If any of those are off, I’ll correct them now.