Skip to content

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.

662 stacks published14,070 scored callsPublished at 20 scored calls

Our picks

Roark scoreTask completionMedian responseCost per minute

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.
CascadeSpeech-to-speech
Task completionTool useTime to first wordResponse timeBarge-in handlingCost per task255075100
MeasureCascadeSpeech-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 s2.1 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

90Universal-3.6 Pro84Universal-3.5 Pro82Nova-382Enhanced (realtime)79Linden-171Nova-266Standard (realtime)56Whisper-152Linden-1 (own VAD)
Every transcriber on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1Universal-3.6 ProAssemblyAI90 / 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
2Universal-3.5 ProAssemblyAI84 / 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
3Nova-3Deepgram82 / 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
4Enhanced (realtime)Speechmatics82 / 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
5Linden-1Speechmatics79 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.3%, 50.0 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.99 s, 28.6 of 29 points1.3%0.99 s$0.020(among the best)
6Nova-2Deepgram71 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.5%, 42.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points1.5%0.89 s(among the best)$0.023(among the best)
7Standard (realtime)Speechmatics66 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.7%, 37.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.96 s, 28.6 of 29 points1.7%0.96 s$0.031
8Whisper-1OpenAI56 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.4%, 45.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 1.93 s, 10.9 of 29 points1.4%1.93 s$0.025
9Linden-1 (own VAD)Speechmatics52 / 100. Semantic word error rate 2.2%, 23.1 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.49 s, 28.6 of 29 points2.2%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.

Cost against qualitySemantic word error rate · Cost per call
$0$0.02$0.04$0.06$0.080.5%1%1.5%2%2.5%Cheap and accurateAccurate, pricierCheap, less accuratePricier and less accurateLinden-1 (own VAD)Linden-1Nova-2Whisper-1Universal-3.6 ProUniversal-3.5 ProStandard (realtime)Nova-3Enhanced (realtime)Cost per call · ← betterSemantic word error rate · better →
Speed against qualitySemantic word error rate · Time to final transcript
0 s1 s2 s3 s0.5%1%1.5%2%2.5%Fast and accurateAccurate, slowerFast, less accurateSlower and less accurateLinden-1 (own VAD)Nova-3Nova-2Universal-3.6 ProUniversal-3.5 ProStandard (realtime)Enhanced (realtime)Linden-1Whisper-1Time to final transcript · ← betterSemantic word error rate · better →

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

66GPT-6.1 Sol61Claude Sonnet 5.551Gemini 3.8 Flash50GPT-4.149Claude Haiku 4.547GPT-4o mini44GPT-5.144GPT-4o
Every language model on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI66 / 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 s73%$0.019(among the best)
2Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic61 / 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
3Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle51 / 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)
4GPT-4.1OpenAI50 / 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 points92%4.2 / 5(among the best)48%0.52 s82%(among the best)$0.022
5Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic49 / 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 points91%4.2 / 5(among the best)47%0.36 s(among the best)–$0.062
6GPT-4o miniOpenAI47 / 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 points90%4.2 / 5(among the best)51%0.45 s(among the best)81%(among the best)$0.002(among the best)
7GPT-5.1OpenAI44 / 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 points89%4.1 / 538%0.59 s74%(among the best)$0.031
8GPT-4oOpenAI44 / 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 points88%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.

Cost against qualityTask completion · Cost per call
$0$0.05$0.1$0.15$0.285%90%95%100%Cheap and reliableReliable, pricierCheap, less reliablePricier and less reliableGPT-4o miniGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6.1 SolGPT-4.1GPT-4oGPT-5.1Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Cost per call · ← betterTask completion · better →
Speed against qualityTask completion · Time to first token
0 s0.5 s1 s1.5 s2 s85%90%95%100%Fast and reliableReliable, slowerFast, less reliableSlower and less reliableClaude Haiku 4.5GPT-4o miniGPT-4oGPT-4.1GPT-5.1Claude Sonnet 5.5GPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.8 FlashTime to first token · ← betterTask completion · better →

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

77Sonic-3.677v4 Turbo77Sonic-3.573Sonic-371Turbo v2.570Flash v2.568Coda55TTS-139TTS-1 HD
Every speech engine on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1Sonic-3.6Cartesia77 / 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
2v4 TurboElevenLabs77 / 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 / 598%0.11 s(among the best)$0.470
3Sonic-3.5Cartesia77 / 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
4Sonic-3Cartesia73 / 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 points6.9%85%3.4 / 599%0.17 s$0.165
5Turbo v2.5ElevenLabs71 / 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 points5.7%(among the best)80%3.4 / 598%0.15 s$0.451
6Flash v2.5ElevenLabs70 / 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 points6%(among the best)80%3.4 / 598%0.12 s(among the best)$0.437
7CodaRime68 / 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 points8.1%83%3.7 / 5(among the best)99%0.18 s$0.116(among the best)
8TTS-1OpenAI55 / 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 points6.1%82%3.6 / 5100%(among the best)1.13 s$0.036(among the best)
9TTS-1 HDOpenAI39 / 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 points8.7%80%3.6 / 5100%(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.

Cost against qualityReadback accuracy · Cost per call
$0$0.2$0.4$0.675%80%85%90%Cheap and accurateAccurate, pricierCheap, less accuratePricier and less accurateTTS-1TTS-1 HDCodaSonic-3Sonic-3.5Sonic-3.6Flash v2.5Turbo v2.5v4 TurboCost per call · ← betterReadback accuracy · better →
Speed against qualityReadback accuracy · Time to first audio byte
0 s1 s2 s3 s75%80%85%90%Fast and accurateAccurate, slowerFast, less accurateSlower and less accuratev4 TurboSonic-3.6Flash v2.5Sonic-3.5Turbo v2.5Sonic-3CodaTTS-1TTS-1 HDTime to first audio byte · ← betterReadback accuracy · better →

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

65GPT Live 1 (Sol)66Grok Voice 3.065GPT Live 1 (Luna)65Grok Voice Think Fast 2.053Gemini 3.8 Live53GPT Realtime 2.148Ultravox v0.748Gemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)48GPT Realtime 246Nova 2 Sonic47Realtime v1 Max45Realtime v1 Mini44GPT Realtime 2.1 mini36Gemini 2.5 Flash native audio

Whiskers show the 95% interval. The shaded models tie for first: these calls cannot separate them.

Every speech-to-speech model on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1= (tied)GPT Live 1 (Sol)OpenAI65 / 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 / 587%(among the best)2.3 s(among the best)1.4 s77%3.1 / 5100%(among the best)$0.24
2= (tied)Grok Voice 3.0xAI66 / 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 s94%3.0 / 5100%(among the best)$0.26
3= (tied)GPT Live 1 (Luna)OpenAI65 / 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 / 586%(among the best)2.3 s(among the best)1.5 s93%3.1 / 5100%(among the best)$0.21
4= (tied)Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0xAI65 / 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 s100%(among the best)3.6 / 5100%(among the best)$0.26
5= (tied)Gemini 3.8 LiveGoogle53 / 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 points78%4.3 / 5(among the best)69%2.8 s1.6 s100%(among the best)4.1 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.14(among the best)
6= (tied)GPT Realtime 2.1OpenAI53 / 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 points78%3.8 / 575%2.6 s0.8 s(among the best)83%3.9 / 5(among the best)99%$0.43
7= (tied)Ultravox v0.7Ultravox48 / 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 points79%3.7 / 561%2.4 s1.6 s94%3.6 / 5100%(among the best)$0.22
8= (tied)Gemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)Google48 / 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 points80%4.2 / 538%2.7 s1.5 s100%(among the best)4.0 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.15
9= (tied)GPT Realtime 2OpenAI48 / 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 points76%3.8 / 564%2.9 s0.8 s(among the best)91%3.7 / 5100%(among the best)$0.69
10= (tied)Nova 2 SonicAmazon46 / 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 points69%4.2 / 548%3.0 s1.5 s100%(among the best)3.5 / 5100%(among the best)$0.06(among the best)
11= (tied)Realtime v1 MaxElevenLabs47 / 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 points56%4.0 / 540%2.6 s0.7 s(among the best)76%3.9 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.65
12= (tied)Realtime v1 MiniElevenLabs45 / 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 points42%3.8 / 534%2.7 s0.7 s(among the best)94%3.4 / 5100%(among the best)$0.64
13= (tied)GPT Realtime 2.1 miniOpenAI44 / 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 points70%3.6 / 551%2.8 s1.0 s84%3.9 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.14(among the best)
14Gemini 2.5 Flash native audioGoogle36 / 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 points77%3.9 / 540%4.2 s3.4 s100%(among the best)3.7 / 5100%(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.

Cost against qualityTask completion · Cost per task
$0$0.5$120%40%60%80%100%Cheap and reliableReliable, pricierCheap, less reliablePricier and less reliableNova 2 SonicGemini 2.5 Flash native audioGPT Realtime 2.1 miniGemini 3.8 LiveGemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)GPT Live 1 (Luna)Ultravox v0.7GPT Live 1 (Sol)Grok Voice 3.0Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0GPT Realtime 2.1Realtime v1 MiniRealtime v1 MaxGPT Realtime 2Cost per task · ← betterTask completion · better →
Speed against qualityTask completion · Response time
1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s20%40%60%80%100%Fast and reliableReliable, slowerFast, less reliableSlower and less reliableGrok Voice 3.0Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0GPT Live 1 (Luna)GPT Live 1 (Sol)Ultravox v0.7Realtime v1 MaxGPT Realtime 2.1Gemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)Realtime v1 MiniGemini 3.8 LiveGPT Realtime 2.1 miniGPT Realtime 2Nova 2 SonicGemini 2.5 Flash native audioResponse time · ← betterTask completion · better →

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).

Loading every stack

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.

01

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

02

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.

03

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

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Task completionscenario_adherence_check23%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_time18%2.0 s6.0 s
In real calls, replying faster than 2 s made no measurable difference, and calls went worse past 3 s.
Instruction followinginstruction_follow14%5.0 / 53.0 / 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_rate14%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_use14%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_word5%1.0 s4.0 s
A greeting within 1 s sounds natural; 4 s of silence sounds like a dead line.
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy5%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_rate5%2%12%
At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong.
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check5%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

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Task completionscenario_adherence_check36%100%80%
An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy.
Tool usetool_use27%100%50%
An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on.
Instruction followinginstruction_follow18%5.0 / 53.0 / 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_token18%0.50 s2.00 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

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate71%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_transcript29%1.00 s2.50 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

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy38%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_rate25%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_byte25%0.20 s1.50 s
Under 0.2 s is not noticeable; 1.5 s is half the point where calls go worse.
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check13%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.

04

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.

Transcript, verbatim.

Read the full methodology

See how your own agent compares

Roark runs the same kind of calls against your agent, on your scenarios, with the same scoring.

Test your agent

Nova-2 + GPT-5.1 + Sonic-3.6

Cascade

Rank on Roark score

#299of 655 stacks

48 / 100

Leader AssemblyAI Universal-3.5 Pro + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + ElevenLabs Turbo v2.5, 70 / 100

Where it ranks

Roark score with price49 / 100441 of 655LeaderUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Coda71 / 100
Task completion82%641 of 656LeaderLinden-1 (own VAD) + GPT-6.1 Sol + TTS-1 HD99%
Tool use42%530 of 632LeaderUniversal-3.6 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + TTS-1 HD90%
Time to first word1.4 s504 of 656LeaderUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Flash v2.50.5 s
Response time3.5 s259 of 655LeaderGrok Voice 3.01.9 s
Barge-in handlingn/aLeaderWhisper-1 + GPT-6.1 Sol + v4 Turbo100%
Turn budget3.5 s227 of 596LeaderLinden-1 (own VAD) + GPT-4o mini + Flash v2.52.1 s
Cost per task$0.47539 of 655LeaderLinden-1 + GPT-4o mini + TTS-1$0.05

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.

20 calls
82%Completed

#647 of 662 on the board · best 99%

Flow adherence

How closely the agent followed the intended conversation flow, judged per call. 5 = fully followed.

20 calls
4.3/ 5avg

med

4

#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.

19 calls
4.3/ 5avg

med

4

#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.

20 calls
0.00%avg

p50

0.00%

p95

0.00%

#1 of 662 on the board · best 0%

Overtalk

Share of the conversation where both sides were speaking over each other.

20 calls
0.71%avg

p50

0.00%

p95

2.79%

#1 of 662 on the board · best 0.0%

Agent self-cutoffs

Times the agent cut its own sentence off mid-word.

20 calls
0.00per callavg

p50

0.00 per call

p95

0.00 per call

#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.

25 calls
0.72per callavg

p50

1.00 per call

p95

2.00 per call

#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.

19 calls
1.51%avg

p50

0.66%

p95

7.10%

#481 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.

19 calls
3.24%avg

p50

2.54%

p95

8.59%

#415 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.

19 calls
81.2%avg

p50

87.2%

p95

100%

#367 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.

20 calls
6.55%avg

p50

3.02%

p95

20.3%

#384 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.

19 calls
3.8/ 5avg

med

4

#151 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.

19 calls

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.

131 turns
3.63savg

p50

3.49s

p95

6.09s

#261 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.

20 calls
5.46savg

p50

1.38s

p95

24.5s

#508 of 662 on the board · best 0.45 s

Latency spikes

Turns where the response took far longer than the rest of the conversation.

20 calls
4.90per callavg

p50

5.00 per call

p95

7.15 per call

#225 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call

By industry

IndustryTask completionLatency P50Barge-in handling
Healthcare75%3.78 s—
Home services82%3.47 s—
Insurance95%3.42 s—
Customer support77%3.50 s—

By caller

CallerTask completionLatency P50Barge-in handling
US English, quiet line92%3.30 s—
Spanish-accented English, city street85%3.67 s—
Indian English, busy café83%3.72 s—
Southern US, flustered, crying baby95%4.22 s—
Fast and interrupting, construction outside57%——

The calls behind the numbers

Customer support

AGENTBrightwave Internet support, this is Alex. What’s going on with your service?

CUSTOMERHi, Alex. My Internet has been down for about two hours now. I work from home, so this is a problem. 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. Could the road work be causing this? My account number is BW883017. Sorry. Last digit is one.

AGENTThanks for the details, and I appreciate you already power‑cycling and checking cables. I’ve pulled up your account as BW883011 and checked your line—there’s no area outage, and your signal to the gateway looks good. The line test showed the gateway wasn’t registered, so I sent a remote reset. It’s now showing as registered and online, and devices may take up to 2 minutes to reconnect. Let’s do a quick confirmation on your side: 1. Check the gateway: - Is the Internet light now solid (usually solid white/green on the BX7) instead of blinking orange? 2. Try a connection

CUSTOMERYeah.

CUSTOMERHow long should it take for my devices to reconnect?

AGENTThey should usually reconnect within about 1–2 minutes after the reset. If anything is still offline after that: - First try turning Wi‑Fi off and back on for that device. - If a device still won’t connect, tell me which type (laptop/phone/work PC/VPN), and I’ll help you fix that specifically.

CUSTOMEROkay. Can you help me with a credit for the downtime?

AGENTI’ve added a $10.00 service credit to your account BW883011 for the downtime. You’ll see it on your next bill.

CUSTOMERI lost two hours of work. Can you make it more than that?

AGENTI can’t change the credit amount beyond what I just applied—$10.00 is the maximum I’m able to issue directly for this type of interruption. If you want to request an additional adjustment, the next step would be to contact Billing so a supervisor can review your account and the impact on your work. I can’t promise they’ll increase

Healthcare

AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic,

CUSTOMERHello. Yes. This is Arjun Mehta. I'm having one dermatology appointment next Wednesday morning. But now I'm scheduled for work during that time. Kindly help me to move my appointment to a later time. After 3PM.

AGENTI can help with that. I’ll just need to verify your record first. Please provide: 1. Your full name as it appears with the clinic (first,

CUSTOMERCertainly. My full name is Arjun Mehta.

AGENTThanks, Arjun. I also need your date of birth to look up your record and find your dermatology appointment. Please provide your date of birth in this format: YYYY-MM-DD.

CUSTOMER03/17/1948. Sorry. No. 1984. 03/17/1984.

AGENTI’ve found your dermatology visit: - Patient: Arjun Mehta. - DOB: 1984-03-17. - Current appointment: next Wednesday at 09:15 with Dr. Okafor, Main Campus, Building B. You asked for a later time after 3 PM. With Dr. Okafor, the first available options after 3 PM are: - Tuesday at 15:45. - Thursday at 16:10. There are no later-in-the-day slots next Wednesday with Dr. Okafor in the system right now. Which would you prefer: Tuesday at 3:45 PM or Thursday at 4:10 PM? Once you choose, I’ll move your appointment and read back the new details.

CUSTOMERTuesdays are not working for me after all. I'm picking up my daughter then. What about Friday? If nothing is available on Friday, I will take Thursday at 04:10PM.

AGENTI checked Friday with Dr. Okafor and only see an 11:30 AM slot, which is before 3 PM, so it doesn’t meet your request. I’ve gone ahead and moved your visit to the time you said you’d take if Friday didn’t work. Here are your new appointment details—let me read everything back: - Patient: Arjun Mehta. - Date of birth: 1984-03-17. - Department: Dermatology. - Provider: Dr. Okafor. - New day and time: Thursday at 4:10 PM. - Location: Main Campus, Building B. - Confirmation code: RVB-3M8P2. Arrival instructions: Please arrive 15 minutes early with a photo ID and your insurance card. Would you like me to also cancel any reminders tied to the old Wednesday morning time, or keep everything as is since the system should now send them for Thursday at 4:10 PM?

CUSTOMERYes. Kindly cancel the reminders tied to the old Wednesday morning appointment. By the way, is there any fee for changing the appointment?

AGENTI’ve updated things so there are no reminders tied to your old Wednesday 09:15 slot—everything is now associated with your new Thursday 4:10 PM appointment with Dr. Okafor. Regarding fees: the clinic’s policy is that changes made more than 24 hours before the appointment are free; changes made less than 24 hours before carry a $40 fee. Since we moved your visit well in advance of next Wednesday, there is no fee for this change. Is there anything else you’d like to adjust for your Thursday 4:10 PM appointment, Arjun?

CUSTOMERYes. Just a couple more things. Where should I park when I arrive at the main campus? Building B?

AGENTFor appointments at Main Campus, including Building B, you can use the clinic’s free patient parking in Lot C. The entrance to Lot C is on River Road. From Lot C, follow the signs for Building B; there are posted directions from the lot into the building. If you’d like, I can also tell you the clinic hours for the day of your appointment.

CUSTOMERThat's clear. Thank you. One last question. Does doctor Okafo accept Aetna insurance?

AGENTI don’t have access to provider-specific insurance panel details in this system, so I can’t reliably confirm whether Dr. Okafor accepts Aetna. To get an accurate answer, you have two good options: 1. Call the Riverbend Health Clinic front desk/billing office and ask specifically, “Does Dr. Okafor accept Aetna?” 2. Check Aetna’s online provider directory by searching for “Riverbend Health Clinic” and “Dr. Okafor” to see if they’re listed as in-network. I recommend doing both if you can, and bringing your Aetna card to your visit so they can verify on arrival.

CUSTOMEROkay. Understood. I will call the front desk and check with Aetna as well. Thank you for your help. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re welcome, Arjun. To recap,

AGENTyour dermatology appointment is now: - Thursday at 4:10 PM. - With Dr. Okafor. - Main Campus, Building B. - Confirmation code: RVB-3M8P2. Parking: free patient parking in Lot C, entrance on River Road. Take care, and goodbye.

Home services

AGENTCopperline Home Services, this is Alex. What can I help you with?

CUSTOMERHello. Yes. I'm having an urgent issue. The pipe under my kitchen sink has burst, and water is spreading across the floor toward a power strip. Can you send someone out quickly to fix it?

AGENTThanks for letting me know right away—let’s get you safe first. 1. Stay away from that power strip and any outlets near the water. Don’t touch it. 2. Shut off the water immediately: - If you can safely reach under the sink without going through water, look for the small shutoff valves on the hot/cold lines and turn them clockwise until they stop. - If there’s already water around the cabinet or it’s not safe to reach in, go to your main water shutoff (often in the basement, garage, utility room, or outside near the street) and turn that valve clockwise to shut off the house water. 3. If the water

CUSTOMEROkay. I'm shutting off the water now, and and it has stopped. What should I do next?

AGENTGood—that’s the most important step. Since the water’s

CUSTOMERRight. So will you be able to send someone out to fix the pipe? Can you tell me how much the visit will cost before I confirm anything?

AGENTYes, we can get someone out quickly for this. From what I’m seeing right now, our earliest emergency arrival

CUSTOMERBefore you finish, can anyone come before 2PM? I need the earliest possible window.

AGENTI’ve just checked—our first emergency arrival window today is 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. There’s nothing earlier available in the system. For pricing: - Emergency call-out fee: $149. - If you’re on our Copperline Care plan, the emergency fee would be $99 instead. - You’d pay by card or check on completion; any repair work or parts would be quoted on-site before they proceed. I can hold that 2:00–4:00 PM emergency window for you. First, can you

CUSTOMERAlright. Yes. Go ahead. What else do you need to confirm?

AGENTThanks. I’ll get this set up as an emergency visit for today. First, a couple of quick safety things while we book this: - Leave the main water off for now.

CUSTOMEROkay. The main water will stay off until the plumber arrives. Who will be coming for the repair, and how will I know they are on the way? Also, can you confirm the ticket number for this visit?

AGENTYou’re all set—I’ve got this booked as an emergency visit for today. Here are the details: - Arrival window: Today, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. - Ticket number: CPL-58210. For your other questions: - Who will be coming? One of our licensed plumbing technicians will handle it. I don’t have a specific name I can share here, but it will be a Copperline Home Services plumber in a clearly marked vehicle with ID. - How you’ll know they’re on the way: You’ll receive a text message about 30

CUSTOMERAlright. I have the ticket number. CPL58210. I'll wait for the text message update. Thank you for your help. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re welcome. Before you go, just a quick recap so we’re on the same

AGENTpage: - Ticket number: CPL-58210. - Address on file: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4B. - Arrival window: Today, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. - Emergency call-out fee (with your Copperline Care membership): $99, plus any approved parts/repairs. Keep the water off and stay clear of that power strip and any outlets near where the water was. If anything changes—like the leak starts again even with the water off—call us back right away. We’ll see you this afternoon. Goodbye.

Insurance

AGENTNorthgate Mutual claims, this is Alex. Are you somewhere safe right now?

CUSTOMERYes. I'm safe. I'm standing next to my car. Oh, I was stopped at a red light. And another car hit the back of my car. Nobody is hurt.

AGENTI’m glad you’re safe and that no one is hurt. We’ll get a claim started. First I need to locate your policy. 1. What’s your Northgate Mutual auto policy number? 2. And the policyholder’s last name?

CUSTOMERSure. My policy number is MD4471903. Oh, no. Sorry. Last one is 2. And the last name is Bramide.

AGENTThanks, I’ve found your policy ending in 2 under Bramide. Now I’ll get the details of the accident. 1. When did this happen? 2. Where did it happen? 3. Can you tell me a bit more about what happened? You mentioned you were stopped at a red light and were rear‑ended—were you in a line of cars, or just you and the other car? 4.

CUSTOMERYeah. So happened about twenty minutes ago. I was stopped at a red light at S E 5th Avenue and Alder Street. It was just me and the other car. Hit me from behind while I was waiting at the light.

AGENTThanks, I’ve got that. I’ll fill in a few more details so we can open the claim. 1. What’s the other driver’s full name, if you have it from their license or insurance card? 2. Do you know their insurance company and policy number? 3. What’s the other car’s license plate number and state?

CUSTOMERYes. The other driver is Kevin Lund. His insurance is with specific store. The license plate is 7KXR214. That's X like X-ray. And it's from Oregon. Don't have his policy number. Do you need anything else?

AGENTI have everything I need to open the claim now,

CUSTOMEROkay. Great. Oh, can you tell me how much I will have to pay? Will there be a deductible? And, also, do I get a rental car while my car is being fixed?

AGENTI can help with that based on your policy. Here’s what I’m showing for policy MD4471902: 1) Deductible. - Your collision deductible is $500. - Because you were rear‑ended, your adjuster will look at whether the other driver’s insurance should pay.

CUSTOMERBut, he hit me, so I should not have to pay that. Right? And, will my premium go up because of this accident?

AGENTBased on what you’ve told me, you were stopped and rear‑ended, so it does sound like the other driver is likely at fault. But there are two separate pieces here: how the claim is handled right now, and who ultimately pays. 1) Deductible / who pays. - Your policy has a $500 collision deductible. - If we repair your car under your policy, that deductible would apply up front. - Your adjuster will then pursue Kevin Lund’s insurer (Specific Store). - If they accept full liability, your deductible can typically be reimbursed to you. - In some cases, if you go directly through the other driver’s insurance and they accept fault right away, you may not have to pay a deductible at all—but that depends on their process and their decision on liability. I can’t change or waive the deductible myself, and I can’t decide fault; that will be up to the adjuster and the other company after they review the facts. 2) Will your premium go up? I’m not able to see or predict premium changes. Whether your rate changes depends on: - State rules and regulations. - Northgate’s underwriting guidelines. - How the accident is classified (at‑fault, not‑at‑fault, surchargeable or not). Your adjuster will be the one who can explain how this loss will be coded and, if needed, direct you to someone who can talk about possible premium impact. 3) Your coverage (what you do have). From your policy MD4471902, you have: - Collision coverage with a $500 deductible. - Rental reimbursement: $40 per day for up to 30 days, starting from the day the claim is opened. - Towing: covered up to 25 miles. If you’d like, next steps I can help with right now are: - Confirm whether your car is drivable and, if not, arrange a tow for you. - Make sure you have your claim number and adjuster info handy and go over how the process will work from here.

CUSTOMERYeah. My car is not drivable. The back bumper is crushed. And the rear wheel is rubbing. Can you arrange a tow truck for me? And, where will the car be paid Also, I need the claim number, please.

AGENTI’m glad you’re safely out of the car. Since the rear wheel is rubbing, you’re right not to drive it. I’ve arranged a tow for you now: - Tow company: Eastside Towing. - Pickup location: intersection of SE 5th Avenue and Alder Street. - ETA: about 45 minutes. - Destination: a Northgate partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. They’ll take it directly to that repair shop. If you’d prefer a different body shop, you can tell the tow driver when they arrive, or let your adjuster know and we can update the destination. Here are the key details you asked for: - Policy number: MD4471902. - Other driver’s license plate: 7KXR214 (Oregon). - Your new claim number: NGM-904417. Your assigned adjuster is Priya Shah; she’ll contact you within one business day to go over repairs, your deductible situation, and your rental coverage ($40 per day for up to 30 days). While you’re waiting for the tow: - Keep your hazard lights on if it’s safe. - Have your ID and keys handy for the driver. Do you have a phone number I should add for the tow driver to reach you when they’re close?

CUSTOMERYes. You can give them my number. (907) 759-4351. That's the phone I have with me now. And, thank you for all the details. I appreciate your help. Goodbye.

How these numbers are measured →