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

Whisper-1 + GPT-5.1 + Sonic-3.5

Cascade

Rank on Roark score

#377of 655 stacks

46 / 100

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

Where it ranks

Roark score with price48 / 100475 of 655LeaderUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Coda71 / 100
Task completion90%453 of 656LeaderLinden-1 (own VAD) + GPT-6.1 Sol + TTS-1 HD99%
Tool use33%611 of 632LeaderUniversal-3.6 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + TTS-1 HD90%
Time to first word0.9 s274 of 656LeaderUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Flash v2.50.5 s
Response time4.6 s527 of 655LeaderGrok Voice 3.01.9 s
Barge-in handling100%24 of 342LeaderWhisper-1 + GPT-6.1 Sol + v4 Turbo100%
Turn budget4.6 s480 of 596LeaderLinden-1 (own VAD) + GPT-4o mini + Flash v2.52.1 s
Cost per task$0.44516 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
90%Completed

#458 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
4.4/ 5avg

med

4.5

#54 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.

20 calls
3.9/ 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.

10 barge-ins
100%Handled correctly(10/10 barge-ins)

#1 of 347 on the board · best 100%

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
0.72%avg

p50

0.28%

p95

2.80%

#300 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.

33 calls
0.85per 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.

20 calls
1.06%avg

p50

0.92%

p95

2.96%

#325 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.

20 calls
3.45%avg

p50

2.65%

p95

6.76%

#451 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
82.7%avg

p50

92.0%

p95

100%

#330 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.

19 calls
9.48%avg

p50

5.79%

p95

27.5%

#556 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
3.6/ 5avg

med

4

#287 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.

157 turns
4.52savg

p50

4.64s

p95

7.01s

#531 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
1.05savg

p50

0.95s

p95

1.57s

#277 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
7.25per callavg

p50

7.00 per call

p95

13.1 per call

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

By industry

IndustryTask completionLatency P50Barge-in handling
Healthcare95%4.83 s—
Home services70%5.15 s—
Insurance95%4.44 s—
Customer support98%4.37 s—

By caller

CallerTask completionLatency P50Barge-in handling
US English, quiet line69%4.42 s—
Spanish-accented English, city street98%4.46 s—
Indian English, busy café96%5.09 s—
Southern US, flustered, crying baby100%4.92 s—
Fast and interrupting, construction outside86%4.64 s—

The calls behind the numbers

Customer support

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

CUSTOMERHi Alex, I'm calling because my internet has been down for about two hours now. I work from home and I had to come to a cafe because of this. There's a road crew digging up the street outside my house. I already rebooted the gateway twice and checked every cable. The internet light is blinking orange. Can you check if the outage is because of the road work? My account number is BW883017. Sorry, last digit is 1.

AGENTI’ve got you under account BW883011, and I see no area outage at your address, so it’s likely local to your line/gateway rather than the road crew cutting a main fiber. I ran a line test and your signal to the gateway looks good, but the gateway itself wasn’t registered properly. I’ve just pushed a remote reset from our side, and it’s now showing as registered and online. Your devices may take about 2 minutes to reconnect. When you get back home, you should see: - Power: solid.

CUSTOMERokay Uh-huh, the light on the gateway just went solid white. How long until my devices reconnect and I can get back online? Also, since I lost two hours of work, can you give me a credit for the downside?

CUSTOMERYou okay, boy?

CUSTOMERHello?

AGENTYou’re back online now that the light is solid white—that means the gateway is fully up. Your devices should reconnect within about 1–2 minutes: - Wired devices (Ethernet) usually come back almost immediately. - Wi‑Fi devices may take up to a couple of minutes; some might need you to briefly toggle Wi‑Fi off/on or reselect your network. I also added a service credit for the downtime: - Account: BW883011. - Credit: $10.00. - It will appear on your next bill. If anything’s still not connecting after a couple of minutes, tell me what device and how it’s connected (Wi‑Fi or Ethernet), and we’ll sort it out quickly.

CUSTOMERI appreciate that, but I lost 2 hours of work. Can you make it more than $10?

AGENTI get why you’re asking—losing two hours of work is rough. On my side, I’m limited to the standard downtime credit, which I’ve already applied: - Account: BW883011.

CUSTOMERAll right.

CUSTOMERYes, that's right. BW883011. Thank you for your help, Alex. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re welcome—and thanks

AGENTfor confirming the account number: BW883011. Glad we could get you back online. If anything else comes up, just reach out. Take care and goodbye.

Healthcare

AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic, this is Alex. How can I help you today?

CUSTOMERHi Alex, I am having one dermatology appointment next Wednesday morning but now I have a work shift at that time. I need to move my appointment to a later time. My name is Arjun Mehta. I can only come after 3 p.m. Can you help me reschedule?

AGENTI can help with that. To pull up your appointment, I need to verify you first. Please provide: - Your full name as it appears with the clinic

CUSTOMERYes, of course. My full name is Arjun Mehta.

AGENTThanks, Arjun. I also need your date of birth (YYYY-MM-DD) to look up your chart and find that dermatology appointment.

CUSTOMERMarch 17, 1948. Sorry, no, 1984. March 17, 1984.

AGENTI’ve found your visit. You’re currently booked for dermatology with Dr. Okafor next Wednesday at 9:15 a.m. at Main Campus, Building B. You said you can only come after 3 p.m. The next available slots with Dr. Okafor that meet that are: - Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. - Thursday at 4:10 p.m. There’s also a Friday 11:30 a.m. slot, but that’s before 3 p.m., so it doesn’t fit what you asked for. Which would you prefer: Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. or Thursday at 4:10 p.m.?

CUSTOMERTuesday does not work after all. I am picking up my daughter that day. What about Friday? Is there any slot after 3 p.m. on Friday? If not, I will take Thursday at 4 10 p.m.

AGENTThere aren’t any Friday slots after 3 p.m. with Dr. Okafor—only 11:30 a.m.—so I’ve moved your visit to Thursday at 4:10 p.m. Here are the details: - Patient: Arjun Mehta. - Date of birth: March 17, 1984. - New appointment: Dermatology with Dr. Okafor. - Day: Thursday. - Time: 4:10 p.m. - 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 repeat or email these details through the clinic’s portal?

CUSTOMERNo need to repeat or email. That's clear. Kindly tell me, is there any fee for changing the appointment?

AGENTThere’s no fee for the change you just made. The clinic’s policy is: changes made more than 24 hours before the appointment are free; changes within 24 hours of the appointment have a $40 fee. Since you rescheduled well in advance, there’s no charge.

CUSTOMEROkay, understood. Where should I park when I arrive at main campus, building B?

AGENTFor Main Campus, Building B, you can park in the clinic’s free patient parking: - Lot: Lot C - Access: Entrance

CUSTOMERAll right.

CUSTOMERGot it. One more thing. Does Dr. Okafor accept Aetna insurance?

AGENTI don’t have access to Dr. Okafor’s insurance panel details, so I can’t safely confirm that. To be sure, you have two good options: 1. Call the clinic’s main line and ask if Dr. Okafor is in-network for Aetna for your specific plan. 2. Check Aetna’s online provider directory using: - Provider name: Dr. Okafor (Dermatology). - Location: Riverbend Health Clinic / Main Campus, Building B. Insurance participation can vary by plan, so when you check, have your Aetna member ID handy and confirm for your exact plan type (HMO/PPO/etc.).

CUSTOMERAlright, I will do the needful and check with Aetna directly. Thank you Alex for your help. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re welcome, Mr. Mehta. Take care, and we’ll see you Thursday at 4:10 p.m. Goodbye.

Home services

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

CUSTOMERHey, uh, sorry to bother y'all, but I've got a real emergency over here. There's a pipe under my kitchen sink just burst, and there's water spreading all across the floor toward a power strip. I've got a baby crying in the background, so I'm kind of flustered, but I need somebody out here, quick! Can you help?

AGENTYes, I can help. First, let’s keep everyone safe: 1. Keep yourself, the baby, and anyone else away from the water near that power strip. 2. Do not touch the power strip or any plugs if they’re near or in the water. 3. If you can safely reach it without stepping in water, unplug the power strip from the wall by pulling the plug, not the strip. If you’d have to stand in water or get very close to it, do not touch it. Next, let’s stop or slow the water: 4. Do you know where your main water shutoff is (often in a basement, utility room, garage, or outside by the street)? - If you do: please go and turn the main water off now—turn the valve handle clockwise until it stops. - If you don’t: if there’s a small valve under the sink feeding that pipe and you can safely reach it without going near the power strip, turn that valve clockwise to shut it. Reply back and tell me: - Have you turned the water off (main or under-sink)? - Is the power strip in the water yet, or just close? While you answer, I’ll get ready to dispatch this as an emergency plumbing call. I’ll need a few details from you next: - Your service address. - A callback phone number. - Any gate code or access instructions. Once I have that, I’ll check our earliest emergency arrival window and the emergency fee for your location, tell you the amount, and get your OK before I book the technician.

CUSTOMERAlright, I just turned off the main water. Yeah, the valve in the utility closet, I think. The water's stopped now, thank goodness. The power strip isn't in the water yet, it's just close by, so we're safe for now. My address is 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D. I moved from 4B last month, so please make sure you've got 4D. Gate code is pound two seven one nine. My callback number is 503-555-0139. No, sorry, 0193. Can you tell me how much this emergency visit will cost before I agree? And is it possible for someone to come before two?

AGENTThanks for getting the main

CUSTOMERSure. So, about the earliest emergency window, can anybody come before 2pm? And, uh, what's the fee for the visit? Sorry, I just want to make sure I know what I'm agreeing to.

AGENTI’ve checked what we have available. - The earliest emergency arrival window today is 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. We don’t have anything sooner than 2:00 PM showing as available. - You’re a Copperline Care member, so your emergency callout fee is $99. That’s the dispatch/diagnostic fee for today’s emergency visit. Any repair work or parts would be quoted to you before we proceed. I’ve already opened a ticket for you with the updated unit: - Service address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D. - Gate code: #2719. - Callback number: 503-555-0193. - Ticket number: CPL-58210. If you’re okay with: - the $99 emergency callout fee, and. - the 2:00–4:00 PM arrival window today, tell me “yes” and I’ll lock that visit in for you under ticket CPL-58210.

CUSTOMERAlright, I'm nervous, but yes, that's okay. $99 and 2pm to 4pm. That works. Can you tell me who's coming and how I'll know they're on the way? And just to check, did you get the unit right? It's 4D, not 4B. Is that okay?

AGENTYou’re all set, and you did the right things so far. I’ve got you booked: - Arrival window: today, 2:00 PM–4:00 PM. - Ticket number: CPL-58210. - Service address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D. - Gate code: #2719. - Callback number: 503-555-0193. - Emergency Copperline Care callout fee: $99. To answer your questions: - Unit number: Yes, we have it as Unit 4D on the ticket (not 4B). That’s what the technician will see. - Who’s coming: The system has you assigned to Dana (one of our plumbing techs). - How you’ll know they’re on the way: - You’ll get a text to 503-555-0193 about 30 minutes before arrival. - The text will include the technician’s name and arrival estimate. Until we get there: 1. Keep the main water shut off. 2. Keep everyone, especially the baby, away from that area until you can mop or towel up the standing water. 3. Don’t plug anything into that power strip and avoid using outlets near where the water was until things are dry. If anything changes (water starts again, power strip gets wet, or you see sparking/smell burning), reply here and also be ready to turn off power at the breaker to that area and call 911 if there are signs of electrical fire.

CUSTOMEROkay, thank you for all the details and for getting this book. I really appreciate your help. Sorry again for all the questions. I'll keep an eye out for that text and make sure everyone stays safe. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re very welcome—no need to apologize for the questions, that’s what I’m here for. We’ve got you set for today, 2:00–4:00 PM, under ticket CPL-58210 at 1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D, gate code #2719, with a $99 emergency Copperline Care callout. If anything changes or you need to update instructions before the tech arrives, just reach out and mention that ticket number. Take care, and we’ll see you this afternoon.

Insurance

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

CUSTOMERyes I'm safe I'm standing next to my car right now on the sidewalk

AGENTI’m glad you’re safe. Is anyone injured or in any danger—either in your car or the other vehicle? If anyone is hurt, please call 911 right away before we do anything else. Next, I’ll get your policy

CUSTOMERNo.

CUSTOMERSorry, could you repeat that? I didn't catch what you said.

AGENTNo problem, I’ll repeat it. You said no one is injured, which is good. The next step is to pull up your policy. Please read me your auto policy number, and the policyholder’s

CUSTOMERSure, it's MP4471903. No, sorry, last one is two.

AGENTThanks, I’ve got your policy number as MP4471902. Now I need to get some details about what happened so we can open your claim. 1. When

CUSTOMEROkay, so about 20 minutes ago I was stopped at a red light at SE 5th Avenue and Alder Street. Another car hit the back of my car. The back bumper is crushed and the rear wheel is rubbing so I can't drive it. Police did not come.

AGENTThanks for explaining what happened; I’m glad you’re not hurt. I’ve opened a claim for you and arranged a tow since the car isn’t safe to drive. Here’s what I have: - Policy number: MP4471902. - Location of accident: SE 5th Avenue and Alder Street. - When: About 20 minutes ago. - What happened: You were stopped at a red light and another vehicle hit the rear of your 2021 Honda CR‑V. The rear bumper is crushed and the rear wheel is rubbing, so it can’t be driven safely. - Injuries: None reported. - Police: Did not attend. Your claim number is NGM-904417. Your assigned adjuster is Priya Shah; you’ll hear from her within one business day. For the tow: - Tow company: Eastside Towing. - ETA: About 45 minutes from now. - Destination: A Northgate partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. A couple of quick questions I still need: 1. Do you have the other driver’s name, their insurance company, and

CUSTOMERYes, the other driver is Kevin Lund, insured with Pacific Shore, his plate is 7KXR214.

AGENTThank you, that helps. Reading back what I have for the other driver: - Name: Kevin Lund. - Insurer: Pacific Shore.

CUSTOMERYes, that's right.

AGENTGot it, thank you. I’ve added this to your claim: - Other driver: Kevin Lund - Insurer: Pacific Shore - License plate: 7KXR214 Let me read the key details back to you: - Policy number: MP4471902 - Other driver’s plate: 7KXR214 - Claim number: NGM-904417 Your adjuster, Priya Shah, will contact you within one business day to go over repairs, coverage, and next steps. Before we wrap up: 1) Are you still waiting safely for the tow at SE 5th and Alder? 2) Is there a phone number the tow driver should use if they need to reach you?

CUSTOMERYes, I'm waiting safely here at C5th and Alder. For the tow driver, my phone number is 660-232-6302.

AGENTThank you. I’ve added your tow contact number as 660-232-6302, and the truck is still headed to you at SE 5th and Alder. Reading back the key items one more time: - Policy number: MP4471902. -

CUSTOMERYes, that's correct. So, I wanted to ask, how much will I have to pay for this? Do I need to pay anything now?

AGENTBased on your policy, here’s how the money side works for this claim: 1) Your collision deductible - Your collision deductible is $500. - That’s the amount you’re responsible for toward

CUSTOMERBut he hit me, so I should not have to pay that, right?

AGENTYou’re right to ask—that part is confusing. Here’s how it works with your policy and this claim: 1) Your deductible right now. - Your policy has a $500 collision deductible. - If we repair your car under your own policy, that $500 applies, even though you were rear‑ended and not at fault. 2) Going after the other driver’s insurance. Because the other driver (Kevin Lund, Pacific Shore) appears to be at fault, there are two common paths: - Path A: You go through Northgate (your policy). - We handle your repairs and towing now. - The $500 deductible applies up front. - If we recover money from Pacific Shore later, we will seek to get your $500 reimbursed. If recovery is successful, you get that back (in whole or in part, depending on what’s recovered). - Path B: You go directly through Pacific Shore. - If they accept fault and handle the claim, they may pay for repairs without you paying a deductible to them. - The trade‑off is that it can sometimes take longer to get things moving while they investigate. 3) Do you have to pay anything right now? - Tow: With your towing coverage (up to 25 miles), you should not have to pay the tow out of pocket right now, as long as it stays within that limit. - Repairs: You usually don’t pay the deductible today at the scene. It’s typically paid to the repair shop when work

CUSTOMERGot it. Do I get a rental car while my car is in the shop and is my premium going to go up?

AGENTHere’s what your policy shows for this claim: 1) Rental car coverage. Your policy includes rental reimbursement: - Up to $40 per day. - For up to 30 days. - Starting from the day the claim is opened (today). Your adjuster, Priya Shah, will help you set up a rental through a partner company, or you can rent on your own and submit receipts (as long as you stay within the limits). 2) Will your premium go up? I don’t have access to rating or renewal decisions, so I can’t see or predict if your premium will change. In general, whether a rate changes can depend on: - Who is ultimately found at fault. - Your state’s rules and surcharge laws. - Your prior claim/accident history.

CUSTOMEROkay, I understand. So I'll wait for Priya to call me about the rental, and the tow truck will come here and take my car to 9th and Morrison, right? Could you repeat the claim number for me?

AGENTYes, that’s right: - The tow truck will come to SE 5th and Alder and take your car to the Northgate partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. - Your adjuster, Priya Shah, will contact you about the rental and next steps. Let me read your key info back: - Policy number: MP4471902. - Other driver’s license plate: 7KXR214. - Claim number: NGM-904417. Please jot that claim number down: NGM-904417. Is there anything else you’re unsure about while you’re waiting for the tow?

CUSTOMERNo, I think that covers everything. Thank you for your help today. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re welcome. I’m

AGENTglad you’re safe—that’s the most important thing. One last time, your claim number is NGM-904417. Take care, and goodbye.

How these numbers are measured →