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
#242of 655 stacks
51 / 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.
#350 of 662 on the board · best 99%
Flow adherence
How closely the agent followed the intended conversation flow, judged per call. 5 = fully followed.
#100 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5
Instruction following
How well the agent stuck to the instructions in its own prompt. 5 = followed throughout.
#13 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5
Turn-taking
Barge-in handling
When the caller interrupts, how often the agent made the right call: yielding to a real correction, and holding the floor through a filler.
#1 of 347 on the board · best 100%
Incorrect interruptions
How often the agent interrupted the caller when it should have kept listening.
#1 of 662 on the board · best 0%
Overtalk
Share of the conversation where both sides were speaking over each other.
#491 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.
#348 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.
#509 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.
#368 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.
#612 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.
#290 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.
#655 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.
#324 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.
#326 of 662 on the board · best 0.45 s
Latency spikes
Turns where the response took far longer than the rest of the conversation.
#496 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
By industry
| Industry | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare | 97% | 3.59 s | — |
| Home services | 88% | 3.77 s | — |
| Insurance | 90% | 3.83 s | — |
| Customer support | 91% | 3.07 s | — |
By caller
| Caller | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| US English, quiet line | 94% | 3.29 s | — |
| Spanish-accented English, city street | 87% | 4.04 s | — |
| Indian English, busy café | 100% | 3.21 s | — |
| Southern US, flustered, crying baby | 91% | 3.88 s | — |
| Fast and interrupting, construction outside | 86% | 3.61 s | 100% |
The calls behind the numbers
Customer support
AGENTBrightwave Internet support, this is Alex. What’s going
AGENTon with your service?
CUSTOMERHi Alex, yeah, I'm calling because my internet has been down for about 2 hours. I work from home and there's a road crew digging up the street right outside. I already rebooted the gateway twice And checked all the cables, but the internet light is blinking orange. Could the roadwork be causing this?
AGENTI can definitely check whether that roadwork is affecting your line. To start, I need to pull up your account. Do you have either: - Your Brightwave account number, or - The phone number on the account?
CUSTOMERYes, I have my account number. It's BW883017. Oh, sorry, last digit is 1. So BW883011. And the phone number is 660-204-1671. Go ahead and check. I'm hoping it's just the road crew causing this.
AGENTThanks, I’ve got your account pulled up as BW883011 with Brightwave 500. It’s not showing any area outage or maintenance at your address, so if the road crew hit something, it’s not yet showing as a network-wide event. The good news is: when I tested your line, the signal from our side to your BX7 gateway looked good, but the gateway itself wasn’t registered properly.
CUSTOMEROkay, I see. The internet light just went solid white. How long until my devices reconnect?
AGENTThat solid white light is exactly what we want—that means the gateway is back online. Most devices should reconnect within 1–2 minutes on their own. If anything doesn’t: - On Wi‑Fi devices,
CUSTOMERAll right, I'll do that. Can you add a credit for the downtime? I lost 2 hours of work.
AGENTI’ve added a service credit for you. Here are
AGENTthe details: - Account: BW883011 - Credit amount: $10.00 - Reason: Unplanned downtime of about 2 hours; gateway needed a remote reset - When you’ll see it: It will appear on your next bill If any devices are still not coming online after a couple of minutes, tell me which ones and how they’re connected (Wi‑Fi or ethernet),
AGENTand I’ll walk
CUSTOMEROkay, but I lost 2 hours of work. Can you make the credit more than $10?
AGENTI understand why you’re asking, especially if you couldn’t work for two hours. Right now, I’ve applied a $10.00 credit on account BW883011, which is the standard courtesy credit I’m able to issue directly for a short unplanned outage. I don’t have the ability to increase that amount myself. If you want to request more than the standard credit, the next step would be to speak with our billing team, since they’re the only ones who can review and approve larger or exception credits tied to lost work time.
CUSTOMERAll right, that works. Please note it on my account. Thanks for your help today, Alex. Goodbye.
Healthcare
AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic, this is Alex. How can
AGENTI help you today?
CUSTOMERHey, I need to reschedule my dermatology appointment that's set for next Wednesday morning. Something came up with work, so I can only do after 3 PM now. Can you help me move it?
AGENTI can help with that. I’ll first need to verify your identity, then I’ll look up that dermatology appointment and check what’s available after 3 PM. Please provide: 1) Your full name (first and last) 2) Your date of birth (YYYY-MM-DD)
CUSTOMERNate Brooks, March 17th, 1948. Sorry, no, 1984. March 17th, 1984.
AGENTYou’re verified as Nate Brooks, born 1984-03-17—thank
CUSTOMERYeah.
CUSTOMERRight, that's me. Go ahead, what's open after 3 on Wednesday?
AGENTThanks for confirming, Nate. I checked Dr. Okafor’s schedule starting next Wednesday—there actually aren’t any Wednesday slots after 3 PM available. The closest options I see that meet your “after 3 PM” requirement with Dr. Okafor are: - Tuesday at 3:45 PM - Thursday at 4:10 PM There’s
CUSTOMERYeah, Tuesdays don't work after all. I pick up my daughter then. What about Friday after 3? Any open slots?
AGENTFor Fridays with Dr. Okafor, the only slot I’m seeing is Friday at 11:30 AM, so there’s nothing after 3 PM on Friday available right now. Your “after
CUSTOMEROkay, if Friday won't work, then let's book Thursday at 4:10 PM. That's fine.
AGENTGot it. I’ve moved your dermatology appointment. Here are the new details—let me read them back to you: - Patient: Nate Brooks - Date of birth: 1984-03-17 - 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. Anything else
CUSTOMERWill there be a fee for changing the appointment?
AGENTyou’d
AGENTThere shouldn’t be a fee for this change. Our policy is: changes made more than 24 hours before the appointment are free; changes within 24 hours carry a $40 fee. You rescheduled your appointment with Dr. Okafor more than 24 hours in advance, so no change fee applies.
CUSTOMERWhere should I park for the main campus? Building B?
AGENTFor Main Campus, including Building B, you can use our free patient parking in Lot C. The entrance to Lot C is on River Road. From Lot C, just follow the signs to Building B’s main entrance.
CUSTOMERYeah, understood. Last thing, does Dr. Okafor take Aetna insurance?
AGENTI don’t have access to provider-specific insurance panel details in this system, so I can’t safely confirm that for you. To check whether Dr. Okafor is in-network
CUSTOMERGot it. I'll follow up on that myself. Thanks for your help. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re welcome, Nate. Your appointment for Thursday at 4:10 PM with Dr. Okafor is all set—confirmation code RVB-3M8P2. Take care, and goodbye.
Home services
AGENTCopperline Home Services, this is Alex. What can
AGENTI help you with?
CUSTOMERYeah, I've got water pouring out under my kitchen sink and it's spreading all over the floor heading toward a power strip. I haven't shut the water off yet. I need someone to come out right away.
AGENTStay clear of that power strip and any outlets near the water. Do not touch the strip or anything plugged into it. 1. Unplug / power safety (only if safe): - If you can safely reach the
CUSTOMERYep, I know. I'm keeping away from it. Can you walk me through shutting the water off? I need someone out here as soon as possible. Yep, I know. I'm staying clear. Can you get someone here fast? Water is still coming out, so I really need help. How much is the visit going to cost?
AGENTThanks for staying clear of that power strip—keep doing that. First, let’s get the water stopped, then I’ll get you booked for the earliest emergency visit
CUSTOMERRight.
CUSTOMEROkay, I'm shutting it off now. The water stopped. Go ahead. What's the earliest time you can get someone here, and what will it cost?
AGENTNice work getting the water shut off—that’s the big step. Earliest I can get someone there is today, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on an emergency visit. Pricing options (from our system): - Emergency visit: $149 - If you’re on Copperline Care: the emergency callout would be $99 - (For reference, a non‑emergency
CUSTOMERAlready got it. Water's off now. Can we move on? I really need someone out as soon as possible. What's the soonest you can get someone here, and how much will that cost?
AGENTEarliest I can get someone there is today between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM as an emergency visit. From our system, the fees are: - Emergency callout:
CUSTOMERNo.
CUSTOMERI need someone before 2 PM. Is there any way to get someone out earlier?
AGENTI’m glad the water’s off—that’s huge. I’m afraid I don’t have anything available earlier than today, 2:00–4:00 PM on the emergency schedule. That’s the first window the system is giving me. The emergency visit fee is: - $149 for the emergency
CUSTOMERI'm not on the care plan. $149 is fine. Book the 2 to 4 window. Who's coming, and how will I know they're on their way?
AGENTGot it—$149 emergency callout, and we’re set for today, 2:00–4:00 PM. I’ve booked you for: - Arrival window:
CUSTOMERRight.
CUSTOMEROut, and how will I know when they're on the way? Also, just to confirm, it's unit 4D at 1480 Larkspur Avenue, not 4B. I moved last month. Gate code is #2719. My callback number is 503-555-5555. 0139— no, 0193. Can you give me the ticket number?
AGENTYou’ll get a text from the technician about 30 minutes before they arrive, sent to 503-555-0193. Here’s what I have on
CUSTOMERUh-huh.
AGENTYou’ll
CUSTOMERI'll keep an eye out for the text. Go ahead, what's the ticket number?
AGENTYour ticket number is CPL-58210. You’re booked for today, 2:00 PM–4:00 PM at: - 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D - Gate code: #2719 - Callback number: 503-555-0193 You’ll get a text about 30 minutes before the technician arrives.
CUSTOMERGot it. Thanks for your help. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re all set. We’ll see you this afternoon.
AGENTGoodbye.
Insurance
AGENTNorthgate Mutual claims, this is Alex. Are you somewhere safe right
AGENTnow?
CUSTOMERYes, I am safe. I am standing next to my car outside a cafe. No injuries. I just need help with the claim.
AGENTI’m glad to hear you’re safe and that no one is hurt. Let’s get your claim started. I’ll need to verify your policy first. 1. What’s
CUSTOMERMy policy number is NG4471903. No, sorry, last one is 2. That is NG4471902.
AGENTThanks. I’ve pulled up policy NG4471902 for your 2021 Honda CR‑V. Next I’ll gather some details about the accident: 1. When did the accident happen? 2. Where did it happen? 3. Can you briefly describe what happened? 4. Is your Honda CR‑V drivable and safe to operate, or is it damaged so that you don’t feel safe driving it?
CUSTOMERThe accident happened about 20 minutes ago at the intersection of SE 5th Avenue and Alder Street. I was stopped at a red light and another car hit the back of my car. The back bumper The bumper is crushed and the rear wheel is rubbing, so I cannot drive it. It is not safe to operate.
AGENTI’ve got everything started for you and we’ll take this step by step. First, I want to confirm: you mentioned no one is injured, correct? Next, I’ll need a few more details: 1. Do you have the other driver’s: - Name - Insurance company - License plate number 2. Did the police come to the scene, and if so, do you have a report number? Your car is not safe to drive, so I’ve arranged a tow: - Tow company: Eastside Towing - ETA:
CUSTOMERYes, nobody is injured. The other driver's name is Kevin Lund, insured with Pacific Shore. His license plate is 7KX, like X-ray, R214. The police did not come to the scene, so there is no report number. Can you tell me where my car will be taken after towing? And I would like to know about my deductible. How much do I have to pay? Since he hit me, I should not have to pay that, right? Also, do I get a rental car, and will my premium go up?
AGENTI’ve updated your claim with that information, and I’ll walk through your questions one by one. First, just to confirm key details I have so far: - Policy number: NG4471902 - Other driver: Kevin Lund, insured with Pacific Shore - Other vehicle plate: 7KXR214 - No injuries, and police did not attend If any of that is not correct, tell me and I’ll fix it. Now, to your questions: 1) Where your car will be towed The tow that’s been dispatched is set to take your Honda CR‑V to a Northgate partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. If you prefer a different repair shop, your adjuster can help redirect the vehicle,
CUSTOMEROkay, go ahead. I am listening. Could you explain about the deductible?
AGENTHere’s how your deductible works on this claim, based on your policy: - Your collision deductible is $500. - That means if your claim is paid under your collision coverage, the first $500 of the covered repairs is your responsibility. - The body shop or Northgate will typically collect that $500 from you, and Northgate pays the rest of the covered repair cost (up to the value of the car). Because you were rear‑ended, Northgate will also look to collect from the other driver’s insurance (Pacific Shore). There are two possibilities: 1) If the other driver’s company accepts full liability quickly: - You may be able to go through their insurance instead. - In that case, you might not have to pay your $500 deductible at all, depending on how they handle the claim. 2) If you go through your own collision coverage first: - You would pay your $500 collision deductible. - Northgate will then try to recover that money from Pacific Shore. - If Northgate recovers it, they can then reimburse your deductible (in whole or in part, depending on what’s recovered). So, you’re not necessarily “stuck” with the $500 forever, but you should plan on a $500 collision deductible up front if we handle the repairs under your policy. You also asked if you get a rental car and whether your premium will go up. I’ll cover those next: - Your policy includes rental reimbursement: $40 per day for up to 30 days, starting from the day the claim is opened. - Whether your premium goes up depends on fault decisions, your state’s
CUSTOMERYes, that's right. Policy number NG4471902. Everything sounds accurate so far. So, I should plan to pay $500 for the deductible now, but if Pacific Shore accepts liability, I might get reimbursed, and I do get a rental car while repairs are being done. That covers my main questions. Could you give me the claim number, please?
AGENTYes, you’ve got it exactly right about the deductible and the rental. Here’s your claim information: - Policy number: NG4471902 - Claim number: NGM-904417 Your adjuster will be Priya Shah; you should hear from her within one business day. Also, to reconfirm the other driver’s plate I have on file: 7KXR214. If that’s not correct, tell me the exact plate and I’ll note the correction.
CUSTOMERThat is correct. The plate is 7KX like X-ray R214. Yes, all details are right. Thank you for your help. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re
AGENTvery welcome. Just to read back the key details one last time before we end the call: - Policy number:
AGENTNG4471902 - Other driver’s plate: 7KXR214 - Claim number: NGM-904417 Your adjuster, Priya Shah, will contact you within one business day. Take care and goodbye.