Skip to content

Roark Live Bench · Suite v1.3 · Sweep of 30 October 2026

Voice AI models, ranked on live phone calls.

Every speech-to-text, language model and text-to-speech model, run in every combination on the same real call to the same agent. A model is ranked on every stack it runs in; the stacks are the evidence.

662 stacks published14,070 scored callsPublished at 20 scored calls

Our picks

Roark scoreTask completionMedian responseCost per minute

The read

  • 430 of 642 cascades complete the task in at least 90% of calls, and the top 10 sit within 1 point of each other. What separates the top stacks is speed and cost.
  • Median response time runs from 2.0 s to 6.2 s on the same agent and the same caller, a spread of 4.2 s that comes entirely from the models behind it.
  • No stack wins everything. The fastest, Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 + ElevenLabs Turbo v2.5 at 2.0 s, ranks 559 of 642 on task completion; the most complete is Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD at 99%.
  • The language model matters most: swapping it moves task completion by 7 points, against 3 for the speech engine and 2 for the transcriber.
  • The fastest speech-to-speech model answers 0.1 s sooner than the fastest cascade, and its completion rate sits 12 points below the best cascade.

Cascade vs Speech-to-Speech

The first choice to make. A cascade chains three models: one transcribes, one decides what to say, one speaks. A speech-to-speech model does all three at once. Both run the same agent on the same calls here.

  • Cascades lead on task completion, tool use, time to first word, barge-in handling and cost per task; speech-to-speech leads on response time. Neither wins outright, so the right choice depends on what your calls need.
  • Speech-to-speech costs 1.6 times as much per completed task: $0.24 for speech-to-speech against $0.15 for cascades.
  • The biggest difference is response time: 3.8 s for cascades against 2.1 s for speech-to-speech.
CascadeSpeech-to-speech
Task completionTool useTime to first wordResponse timeBarge-in handlingCost per task255075100
MeasureCascadeSpeech-to-speech
Task completion
94% (leads)85%
Tool use
78% (leads)78%
Time to first word
0.8 s (leads)1.1 s
Response time
3.8 s2.1 s (leads)
Barge-in handling
100% (leads)96%
Cost per task
$0.15 (leads)$0.24

The three strongest of each, averaged. Cascades: AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + Rime Coda; Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-4.1 + Rime Coda; AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro + Google Gemini 3.8 Flash + Rime Coda. Speech-to-speech: grok-voice-think-fast-2.0; gpt-live-1 (backend gpt-6-luna); grok-voice-3.0. Each measure is scored 0 to 100 on its own scale, further out is better; the table gives the same figures in their own units.

Which to use

  • Choose speech-to-speech when the pause matters more than the outcome: short transactional calls, callers who interrupt, queues where every half second costs you callers. Expect to pay more, and choose the model carefully (grok-voice-3.0 leads here).
  • Choose a cascade when the call has to complete, when cost matters, or when you need to see which stage to fix. It is 12 points ahead on task completion here.
  • Costs are what each stack’s providers charged for these calls, at the rates in effect when they ran. Telephony and hosting are not included.

Speech-to-Text

The transcriber turns the caller's speech into text. It decides what the agent thinks it heard, and nothing after it can start until it finishes.

  • AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro, AssemblyAI Universal-3.5 Pro, Deepgram Nova-3 and Speechmatics Enhanced (realtime) are level: none leads by more than the margin of error. Of them, AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro costs least, at $0.030 a call. Avoid Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD): last on semantic word error rate (2.2%).
  • Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) delivers its transcript in 0.49 s, OpenAI Whisper-1 in 1.93 s: 1.44 s added to every turn of the call.
  • AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro is the most accurate: it changes the meaning of 0.9% of the caller's words, against 2.2% for Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD).
  • In 341 of 648 cascades the transcriber is the slowest step of the turn, whichever model runs it.

Roark score, best first

90Universal-3.6 Pro84Universal-3.5 Pro82Nova-382Enhanced (realtime)79Linden-171Nova-266Standard (realtime)56Whisper-152Linden-1 (own VAD)
Every transcriber on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1Universal-3.6 ProAssemblyAI90 / 100. Semantic word error rate 0.9%, 61.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best)0.9%(among the best)0.89 s(among the best)$0.030
2Universal-3.5 ProAssemblyAI84 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 55.7 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.90 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best)1.1%(among the best)0.90 s$0.030
3Nova-3Deepgram82 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 53.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best)1.1%(among the best)0.89 s(among the best)$0.031
4Enhanced (realtime)Speechmatics82 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 53.3 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.98 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best)1.1%(among the best)0.98 s$0.054
5Linden-1Speechmatics79 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.3%, 50.0 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.99 s, 28.6 of 29 points1.3%0.99 s$0.020(among the best)
6Nova-2Deepgram71 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.5%, 42.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points1.5%0.89 s(among the best)$0.023(among the best)
7Standard (realtime)Speechmatics66 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.7%, 37.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.96 s, 28.6 of 29 points1.7%0.96 s$0.031
8Whisper-1OpenAI56 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.4%, 45.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 1.93 s, 10.9 of 29 points1.4%1.93 s$0.025
9Linden-1 (own VAD)Speechmatics52 / 100. Semantic word error rate 2.2%, 23.1 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.49 s, 28.6 of 29 points2.2%0.49 s(among the best)$0.020(among the best)

Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.

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

Language model

The language model decides what the agent says and does. It has the most influence on whether the task gets done, and usually takes the largest share of each turn.

  • Pick OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol: it leads on task completion (95%), tool use (77%) and instruction following (4.2 / 5). If speed matters more, Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 is the quickest, at 0.36 s, and completes 91%. Avoid OpenAI GPT-4o: last on task completion (88%).
  • Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 starts answering in 0.36 s, Google Gemini 3.8 Flash in 1.47 s: 1.11 s added to every turn of the call.
  • OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol uses its tools most reliably: it handles its tools without a mistake on 77% of calls, against 38% for OpenAI GPT-5.1.
  • In 161 of 648 cascades the language model is the slowest step of the turn, whichever model runs it.

Roark score, best first

66GPT-6.1 Sol61Claude Sonnet 5.551Gemini 3.8 Flash50GPT-4.149Claude Haiku 4.547GPT-4o mini44GPT-5.144GPT-4o
Every language model on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI66 / 100. Task completion 95%, 27.0 of 36 points; Tool use 77%, 15.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.3 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.97 s, 12.4 of 18 points(among the best)95%(among the best)4.2 / 5(among the best)77%(among the best)0.97 s73%$0.019(among the best)
2Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic61 / 100. Task completion 94%, 25.1 of 36 points; Tool use 72%, 11.8 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.90 s, 13.3 of 18 points(among the best)94%(among the best)4.2 / 5(among the best)72%(among the best)0.90 s–$0.138
3Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle51 / 100. Task completion 95%, 26.5 of 36 points; Tool use 62%, 6.7 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.1 of 18 points; Time to first token 1.47 s, 6.4 of 18 points(among the best)95%(among the best)4.2 / 5(among the best)62%(among the best)1.47 s–$0.016(among the best)
4GPT-4.1OpenAI50 / 100. Task completion 92%, 21.2 of 36 points; Tool use 48%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.52 s, 18.0 of 18 points92%4.2 / 5(among the best)48%0.52 s82%(among the best)$0.022
5Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic49 / 100. Task completion 91%, 19.4 of 36 points; Tool use 47%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.0 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.36 s, 18.2 of 18 points91%4.2 / 5(among the best)47%0.36 s(among the best)–$0.062
6GPT-4o miniOpenAI47 / 100. Task completion 90%, 17.4 of 36 points; Tool use 51%, 0.7 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.45 s, 18.2 of 18 points90%4.2 / 5(among the best)51%0.45 s(among the best)81%(among the best)$0.002(among the best)
7GPT-5.1OpenAI44 / 100. Task completion 89%, 17.0 of 36 points; Tool use 38%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.1 / 5, 10.1 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.59 s, 17.1 of 18 points89%4.1 / 538%0.59 s74%(among the best)$0.031
8GPT-4oOpenAI44 / 100. Task completion 88%, 15.0 of 36 points; Tool use 50%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.9 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.45 s, 18.2 of 18 points88%4.2 / 5(among the best)50%0.45 s(among the best)–$0.027

Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.

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

Text-to-Speech

The speech engine is the voice the caller hears, and the last step before they hear anything.

  • Cartesia Sonic-3.6, ElevenLabs v4 Turbo and Cartesia Sonic-3.5 are level: none leads by more than the margin of error. Of them, Cartesia Sonic-3.5 costs least, at $0.165 a call. Avoid OpenAI TTS-1 HD: last on readback accuracy (80%), word error rate (8.7%) and time to first audio byte (2.09 s).
  • ElevenLabs v4 Turbo starts speaking in 0.11 s, OpenAI TTS-1 HD in 2.09 s: 1.97 s added to every turn of the call.
  • Cartesia Sonic-3.6 is the most accurate: it reads codes, amounts and dates back correctly 87% of the time, against 80% for OpenAI TTS-1 HD.
  • Cartesia Sonic-3.6 sounds the most human: 3.8 / 5, against 3.4 / 5 for ElevenLabs Flash v2.5.
  • In 99 of 648 cascades the speech engine is the slowest step of the turn, most often with OpenAI TTS-1 HD (54 of them).

Roark score, best first

77Sonic-3.677v4 Turbo77Sonic-3.573Sonic-371Turbo v2.570Flash v2.568Coda55TTS-139TTS-1 HD
Every speech engine on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1Sonic-3.6Cartesia77 / 100. Readback accuracy 87%, 25.6 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.2%, 14.5 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.12 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 12.1 of 13 points(among the best)6.2%87%(among the best)3.8 / 5(among the best)99%0.12 s(among the best)$0.168
2v4 TurboElevenLabs77 / 100. Readback accuracy 87%, 25.1 of 38 points; Word error rate 5.7%, 15.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.11 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.2 of 13 points(among the best)5.7%(among the best)87%(among the best)3.6 / 598%0.11 s(among the best)$0.470
3Sonic-3.5Cartesia77 / 100. Readback accuracy 86%, 24.6 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.2%, 14.6 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.13 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.4 of 13 points(among the best)6.2%86%(among the best)3.8 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)0.13 s$0.165
4Sonic-3Cartesia73 / 100. Readback accuracy 85%, 23.3 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.9%, 12.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.17 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 12.1 of 13 points6.9%85%3.4 / 599%0.17 s$0.165
5Turbo v2.5ElevenLabs71 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 19.0 of 38 points; Word error rate 5.7%, 15.6 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.15 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.5 of 13 points5.7%(among the best)80%3.4 / 598%0.15 s$0.451
6Flash v2.5ElevenLabs70 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 18.5 of 38 points; Word error rate 6%, 14.9 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.12 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.5 of 13 points6%(among the best)80%3.4 / 598%0.12 s(among the best)$0.437
7CodaRime68 / 100. Readback accuracy 83%, 21.7 of 38 points; Word error rate 8.1%, 9.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.18 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 11.8 of 13 points8.1%83%3.7 / 5(among the best)99%0.18 s$0.116(among the best)
8TTS-1OpenAI55 / 100. Readback accuracy 82%, 21.0 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.1%, 14.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 1.13 s, 7.1 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.5 of 13 points6.1%82%3.6 / 5100%(among the best)1.13 s$0.036(among the best)
9TTS-1 HDOpenAI39 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 18.3 of 38 points; Word error rate 8.7%, 8.4 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 2.09 s, 0.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.4 of 13 points8.7%80%3.6 / 5100%(among the best)2.09 s$0.065(among the best)

Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.

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

Speech-to-Speech models

One model listens, reasons and speaks, so there is nothing to swap and no stages to split. Each is judged on the whole call, with the same calls and the same scoring as every cascade.

  • The model matters as much as the architecture: xAI Grok Voice 3.0 completes 87% of tasks, ElevenLabs Realtime v1 Mini 42%.
  • xAI Grok Voice 3.0 answers in 1.9 s against 4.2 s for Google Gemini 2.5 Flash native audio.
  • Price varies as much as quality: $0.06 per completed task for Amazon Nova 2 Sonic, $0.69 for OpenAI GPT Realtime 2.

Roark score, best first

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

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

Every speech-to-speech model on every figure, sorted by roark score. Column headers sort the table.
#
1= (tied)GPT Live 1 (Sol)OpenAI65 / 100±3.8. Task completion 85%, 6.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.3 s, 16.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.2 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 87%, 10.2 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.4 s, 3.9 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best)85%(among the best)4.2 / 587%(among the best)2.3 s(among the best)1.4 s77%3.1 / 5100%(among the best)$0.24
2= (tied)Grok Voice 3.0xAI66 / 100±4.7. Task completion 87%, 8.0 of 23 points; Response time 1.9 s, 18.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.5 / 5, 10.5 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 66%, 4.4 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.9 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best)87%(among the best)4.5 / 5(among the best)66%1.9 s(among the best)0.9 s94%3.0 / 5100%(among the best)$0.26
3= (tied)GPT Live 1 (Luna)OpenAI65 / 100±3.5. Task completion 85%, 5.7 of 23 points; Response time 2.3 s, 16.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 86%, 9.9 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.8 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best)85%(among the best)4.2 / 586%(among the best)2.3 s(among the best)1.5 s93%3.1 / 5100%(among the best)$0.21
4= (tied)Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0xAI65 / 100±3.7. Task completion 82%, 2.8 of 23 points; Response time 2.2 s, 17.4 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.6 / 5, 10.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 82%, 8.6 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.9 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best)82%4.6 / 5(among the best)82%(among the best)2.2 s(among the best)0.9 s100%(among the best)3.6 / 5100%(among the best)$0.26
5= (tied)Gemini 3.8 LiveGoogle53 / 100±4.8. Task completion 78%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.8 s, 14.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.3 / 5, 8.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 69%, 5.2 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.6 s, 3.6 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points78%4.3 / 5(among the best)69%2.8 s1.6 s100%(among the best)4.1 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.14(among the best)
6= (tied)GPT Realtime 2.1OpenAI53 / 100±5.7. Task completion 78%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.6 s, 15.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.6 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 75%, 6.8 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.8 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 99%, 4.3 of 5 points78%3.8 / 575%2.6 s0.8 s(among the best)83%3.9 / 5(among the best)99%$0.43
7= (tied)Ultravox v0.7Ultravox48 / 100±5.0. Task completion 79%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.4 s, 16.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.7 / 5, 4.9 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 61%, 3.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.6 s, 3.6 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points79%3.7 / 561%2.4 s1.6 s94%3.6 / 5100%(among the best)$0.22
8= (tied)Gemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)Google48 / 100±5.1. Task completion 80%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.7 s, 15.1 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.0 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 38%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.8 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points80%4.2 / 538%2.7 s1.5 s100%(among the best)4.0 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.15
9= (tied)GPT Realtime 2OpenAI48 / 100±6.7. Task completion 76%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.9 s, 14.0 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 64%, 3.7 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.8 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points76%3.8 / 564%2.9 s0.8 s(among the best)91%3.7 / 5100%(among the best)$0.69
10= (tied)Nova 2 SonicAmazon46 / 100±5.1. Task completion 69%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 3.0 s, 13.8 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 7.9 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 48%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.7 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points69%4.2 / 548%3.0 s1.5 s100%(among the best)3.5 / 5100%(among the best)$0.06(among the best)
11= (tied)Realtime v1 MaxElevenLabs47 / 100±7.5. Task completion 56%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.6 s, 15.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.0 / 5, 6.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 40%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.7 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points56%4.0 / 540%2.6 s0.7 s(among the best)76%3.9 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.65
12= (tied)Realtime v1 MiniElevenLabs45 / 100±7.1. Task completion 42%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.7 s, 15.1 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.1 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 34%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.7 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points42%3.8 / 534%2.7 s0.7 s(among the best)94%3.4 / 5100%(among the best)$0.64
13= (tied)GPT Realtime 2.1 miniOpenAI44 / 100±6.7. Task completion 70%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.8 s, 14.5 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.6 / 5, 4.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 51%, 0.3 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.0 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points70%3.6 / 551%2.8 s1.0 s84%3.9 / 5(among the best)100%(among the best)$0.14(among the best)
14Gemini 2.5 Flash native audioGoogle36 / 100±5.4. Task completion 77%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 4.2 s, 8.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.9 / 5, 6.2 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 40%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 3.4 s, 0.9 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points77%3.9 / 540%4.2 s3.4 s100%(among the best)3.7 / 5100%(among the best)$0.08(among the best)

Open a model for its full report, every figure it was scored on and the calls behind them.

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

Every stack

The evidence behind the model boards: each combination on its own calls, scored on the same recipe. Open a stack for its full report, every figure it was scored on and the calls behind them.

Roark score, top 15

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

Each score carries its 95% margin of error. A rank is the best place a stack could hold once every margin is allowed for, so stacks the calls cannot tell apart share one and are listed by the low end of their margin; hover a rank for the worst place it could hold. 85 stacks are level with the leader: their calls cannot tell them apart. Among them, 36 OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol, 22 Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5, 19 Google Gemini 3.8 Flash, 4 speech-to-speech, 3 Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 and 1 OpenAI GPT-4o mini; 42 AssemblyAI, 20 Deepgram and 19 Speechmatics; 37 Cartesia, 36 ElevenLabs, 7 Rime and 1 OpenAI. A cascade's figures are 25% its own calls and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice. Not ranked here for missing data: Speechmatics Linden-1 + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD (no response time or tool use or readback accuracy or voice consistency).

Loading every stack

By industry

Each industry ranked on its own calls: the same five callers, its own tasks and tools. A stack has a handful of calls in each, so a cascade is ranked on what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry, and a speech-to-speech model on its own calls there. Pairings show on the main board. Each row reads across: the main board's figure first, then every industry's on the same figure.

No stack matches these filters.

No stack matches

Each industry column is that industry's own board, every row it ranks. A dash is a row the industry does not rank on this figure; the arrow beside an industry opens its full board.

How it works

Every number on this page comes from real phone calls, placed and scored the same way for every stack.

01

Real calls, four industries, five callers

Roark places real phone calls over the public phone network to a reference agent for each of four industries: rescheduling a clinic appointment, booking an urgent home repair, opening an auto insurance claim and fixing an internet outage. Each agent has its own prompt and tools, identical for every stack. The tasks carry the details real calls trip on: a corrected date of birth, a policy number spelled out, a constraint added halfway through.

Every industry is called by the same five simulated callers: a quiet US English line, a Spanish-accented caller on a city street, an Indian English caller in a busy café, a flustered Southern caller with a baby crying, and a fast caller who interrupts over construction noise. They are equally clear about what they want, so a call fails because of the agent, not the caller. Only the models change, so any difference on the board comes from them.

Each caller rings each industry once for a cascade and four times for a speech-to-speech model. A cascade's figures also draw on its parts, heard in dozens of other stacks; a speech-to-speech model has only its own calls, so it takes more of them.

That makes industries comparable over the same callers, and callers over the same tasks, and the board can be re-ranked by either. One caller within one industry is too few calls to judge, so the board never shows it.

656

stacks

20

calls per stack

13,956

calls scored

02

Every model, in every combination

9 transcribers, 8 language models and 9 voices are run in every combination with each other, beside 14 speech-to-speech models. A model's own figures pool every stack it runs in, adjusted for its partners in each one, so every model is compared as if it ran with the same partners. A transcriber's figure rests on hundreds of calls with every language model and every voice, not on one lucky pairing.

That measures a model where it actually works: inside a running agent, on live phone audio, through interruptions, corrections and real turn-taking. A test that feeds a model clean audio files or one prompt at a time never sees any of that.

03

One score, weighted by what matters on a call

Each section ranks on a Roark score. Every figure scores 0 to 100 between two published points: full marks where doing better makes no difference to the caller, zero where the call breaks down. Each then counts at its weight, and the weights follow one order everywhere: whether the caller got what they rang for, then whether the agent got it right, then speed.

A stack, cascade or speech-to-speech, is scored on the outcome and the reply first, then on what each of its components got right on its own calls: the words its transcriber got wrong in a way that changes the meaning, whether its voice read codes and amounts back right and kept one steady voice, and whether its tools were handled. How human a voice sounds is shown on the boards and not scored. A component that leads its section lifts every stack that carries it, by the same recipe for every stack. A figure a stack cannot carry, such as a semantic word error rate for a speech-to-speech model with no transcript, is credited at the field median, so the stack is neither flattered nor punished for it.

On a full sweep each cascade's figure is 25% what its own calls measured and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice, fitted across the whole sweep. The split is the same for every stack, so a lucky run does not lead and a stack's score does not move with how noisy its calls were. In an industry a stack has a handful of calls, so a cascade's figure there is what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry's calls, and a speech-to-speech model's is its own calls there. How a particular pairing beats or misses its parts shows on the main board, where each stack has all of its calls. The best overall, best value and best speech-to-speech picks, and the best stack in each industry, are each the one whose score is highest at the low end of its margin of error, so a few lucky calls cannot carry a stack past one whose score rests on hundreds. Stacks that share a rank are listed by score, so the pick can sit below a higher score it cannot be told from, and its reason says how many stacks are level with it.

That order comes from real-world voice agent calls, where getting the conversation right predicts how a call ends more strongly than speed does. The latency points come from the same calls: replying faster than about 2 seconds made no measurable difference, and calls went measurably worse once the agent took more than about 3 seconds to reply.

Stacks and speech-to-speech

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Task completionscenario_adherence_check23%100%80%
An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy. On a full sweep, a cascade's figure is 25% what its own calls (20 or more) measured and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice, the same split for every stack, so a lucky run does not lead. Where the sweep is too small for that, and for a speech-to-speech model, the figure is the stack's own. In an industry a stack has a handful of calls, so a cascade's figure there is what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry's calls, and a speech-to-speech model's is its own calls there. How a particular pairing beats or misses its parts shows on the main board, where each stack has all of its calls.
Response timeresponse_time18%2.0 s6.0 s
In real calls, replying faster than 2 s made no measurable difference, and calls went worse past 3 s.
Instruction followinginstruction_follow14%5.0 / 53.0 / 5
Every model scores between 3 and 5 on the judge's 1 to 5 scale, so that is the range.
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate14%0.5%3%
At 0.5% the best transcribers change the meaning of one word in two hundred on phone audio; at 3% one word in thirty sends the agent the wrong way.
Tool usetool_use14%100%50%
An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on.
Time to first wordtime_to_first_word5%1.0 s4.0 s
A greeting within 1 s sounds natural; 4 s of silence sounds like a dead line.
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy5%100%60%
Reading a code, amount or date wrong breaks the task it was for; the weakest voices get two in five wrong.
Word error ratetts_word_error_rate5%2%12%
At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong.
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check5%100%80%
A voice that changes speaker on one call in five is not one a business can put its name to.

Shown, not scored: Turn budget, Barge-in handlingbarge_in_yield_appropriateness, Human-likenessvoice_human_likeness

Counted only with price factored in: Cost per task

Language model

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Task completionscenario_adherence_check36%100%80%
An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy.
Tool usetool_use27%100%50%
An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on.
Instruction followinginstruction_follow18%5.0 / 53.0 / 5
Every model scores between 3 and 5 on the judge's 1 to 5 scale, so that is the range.
Time to first tokenllm_time_to_first_token18%0.50 s2.00 s
Under 0.5 s is not noticeable; at 2 s the first token alone takes two thirds of the 3 s past which real calls go worse.

Shown, not scored: Prompt cache hitsllm_prompt_cache_hit_rate

Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call

Speech-to-Text

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate71%0.5%3%
At 0.5% the best transcribers change the meaning of one word in two hundred on phone audio; at 3% one word in thirty sends the agent the wrong way.
Time to final transcriptstt_time_to_final_transcript29%1.00 s2.50 s
The fastest transcribers finish in about 1 s; past 2.5 s the transcript alone uses most of a natural reply time.

Shown, not scored: Word error ratestt_word_error_rate

Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call

Text-to-Speech

FigureWeightFull marksZero
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy38%100%60%
Reading a code, amount or date wrong breaks the task it was for; the weakest voices get two in five wrong.
Word error ratetts_word_error_rate25%2%12%
At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong.
Time to first audio bytetts_time_to_first_byte25%0.20 s1.50 s
Under 0.2 s is not noticeable; 1.5 s is half the point where calls go worse.
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check13%100%80%
A voice that changes speaker on one call in five is not one a business can put its name to.

Shown, not scored: Human-likenessvoice_human_likeness

Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call

Factor in price and cost takes 25% of the score; the other weights keep their proportions. Price is scored on a log scale, so each doubling costs the same points.

A figure listed as shown, not scored is on the section’s boards and outside its score. Where a section has not collected a scored figure yet, the others share its weight.

04

Every call recorded and judged

Every call is recorded. Judge models score each transcript for the outcome and the conversation, and the timings come from the recording. Every figure links to the calls behind it.

Roark is on both sides of every call: it plays the caller, so it keeps the exact text its caller said, and it runs the agent under test, so it sees what the agent’s transcriber heard and what its model wrote for its voice. The transcript and voice figures come from lining those up, with no hand-made transcript in between. Each carries a margin from the synthetic voice or Roark’s transcriber in the loop. Every model faces the same ones under the same conditions, so the figures compare models on the same calls through the same voice and the same ear, though those slips need not fall evenly on each model. The rates will not match a vendor’s figure on a curated set; read them against each other.

An example: one call from this sweep

Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD, 30 October 2026. Highlighted turns are the ones that affected a score. Every stack's report links to its calls.

Transcript, verbatim.

Read the full methodology

See how your own agent compares

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

Test your agent

Nova-3 + GPT-5.1 + TTS-1

Cascade

Rank on Roark score

#401of 655 stacks

47 / 100

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

Where it ranks

Roark score with price53 / 100296 of 655LeaderUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Coda71 / 100
Task completion94%198 of 656LeaderLinden-1 (own VAD) + GPT-6.1 Sol + TTS-1 HD99%
Tool use49%394 of 632LeaderUniversal-3.6 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + TTS-1 HD90%
Time to first word2.7 s565 of 656LeaderUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Flash v2.50.5 s
Response time4.4 s482 of 655LeaderGrok Voice 3.01.9 s
Barge-in handling100%45 of 342LeaderWhisper-1 + GPT-6.1 Sol + v4 Turbo100%
Turn budget4.4 s437 of 596LeaderLinden-1 (own VAD) + GPT-4o mini + Flash v2.52.1 s
Cost per task$0.17215 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
94%Completed

#199 of 662 on the board · best 99%

Flow adherence

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

20 calls
4.3/ 5avg

med

4

#100 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5

Instruction following

How well the agent stuck to the instructions in its own prompt. 5 = followed throughout.

20 calls
4.1/ 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.

21 barge-ins
100%Handled correctly(21/21 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
2.31%avg

p50

0.90%

p95

7.63%

#520 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.

30 calls
0.83per 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
1.09%avg

p50

0.37%

p95

6.05%

#346 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
2.88%avg

p50

1.68%

p95

9.42%

#341 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.

20 calls
75.0%avg

p50

80.3%

p95

99.1%

#488 of 603 on the board · best 100%

Word error rate

The share of the words the agent wrote that its voice dropped or changed, read back from Roark’s transcription of the recording; the same transcriber hears every voice.

20 calls
6.57%avg

p50

5.26%

p95

16.3%

#385 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.

20 calls
3.7/ 5avg

med

4

#205 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.

20 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.

169 turns
4.31savg

p50

4.38s

p95

6.97s

#486 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
2.64savg

p50

2.70s

p95

3.94s

#569 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
7.70per callavg

p50

7.00 per call

p95

14.0 per call

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

By industry

IndustryTask completionLatency P50Barge-in handling
Healthcare93%4.37 s—
Home services95%4.09 s100%
Insurance95%4.06 s—
Customer support93%4.77 s—

By caller

CallerTask completionLatency P50Barge-in handling
US English, quiet line98%4.31 s—
Spanish-accented English, city street98%5.04 s—
Indian English, busy café98%3.99 s—
Southern US, flustered, crying baby96%4.95 s—
Fast and interrupting, construction outside80%4.28 s100%

The calls behind the numbers

Customer support

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

CUSTOMERHey, Alex. My Internet's been down for two hours now. I work from home, and there's a road crew digging up the street outside. The gateway has been rebooted twice. All the cables are fine, but the Internet light is blinking orange. Can you check if that roadwork is the cause? My account number is BW883017. Sorry. Last digit is one.

AGENTI’ve got you pulled up under account BW8830171, on the Brightwave 500 plan.

CUSTOMEROkay.

CUSTOMERGot it.

CUSTOMERBut the Internet light's still blinking orange. Already rebooted the gateway twice and checked every cable, so it's not on my end. What else can you do from your side?

AGENTFrom my side, your gateway now shows as registered and online after the remote reset I sent a moment ago, so the network path to your modem looks good. Since your Internet light is still blinking orange, let’s pin down where it’s failing.

CUSTOMERYeah.

CUSTOMERThe light just went solid white now. Long until my devices reconnect?

AGENTSolid white is a good sign—that means the gateway is online. Your devices usually take up to about 2 minutes to reconnect automatically. Many will come back in under a minute, but a few (like some work laptops or smart TVs) can be slower.

CUSTOMERUh-huh.

CUSTOMERYep. Got it. Can you issue a credit for the downtime? I lost two hours of work.

AGENTI’ve added a $10.00 service credit on account BW8830171 for about two hours of interruption. It’ll show on your next bill.

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

CUSTOMERYeah.

CUSTOMERUnderstood. Thanks for your help. Goodbye.

AGENTYou’re welcome—glad we got you back online.

CUSTOMERYeah.

AGENTTake care, and call back if anything else comes up.

Healthcare

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

CUSTOMERHi. Yes. I need to move my dermatology appointment next Wednesday morning. Something came up at work, so I can't make that time anymore. My name is Jordan Ellis.

AGENTI can help with that. I’ll just need to verify your record first. What is your full date of birth (YYYY-MM-DD)?

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

AGENTThanks, Jordan. I’ve got you pulled up. You’re currently booked for dermatology with Dr. Okafor next Wednesday at 09:15 at Main Campus, Building B. You mentioned you need to move that appointment and that you can’t do Wednesday morning. A couple of quick questions so I can look for new times that actually work for you:

- Are you hoping to stay with Dr. Okafor, or is any dermatology provider okay? - What days and times generally work for you instead? Once I know that, I’ll check availability and give you specific options.

CUSTOMERI'd like to stay with doc Okafor if possible. I can only come after 3PM. What options are available?

AGENTI can keep you with Dr. Okafor and move you to an after‑3PM slot. Here are the options I see starting from next week:

- Tuesday at 1545

- Thursday at 1610

Which would you preferTuesday at 15:45 or Thursday at 16:10?

CUSTOMERTuesdays don't work after all. I pick up my daughter then. What about Friday? If that's not available, I'll take Thursday at sixteen ten.

AGENTRight now with Dr. Okafor, the only Friday option I see is 11:30, which is before 3PM, so that won’t work with your schedule. I’ll go ahead and move your appointment to Thursday at 16:10 with Dr. Okafor. Please confirm: you want to reschedule your dermatology appointment from next Wednesday at 09:15 to Thursday at 16:10 with Dr. Okafor.

CUSTOMERYes. That's right. Please go ahead and reschedule it for Thursday at sixteen ten with doctor Okafor. Before we finish, could you tell me if there's a fee to change the appointment? And where should I park for the main campus building? B. Also, does doctor Okafor accept Aetna insurance?

AGENTYou’re all set, Jordan. I’ve moved your dermatology visit with Dr. Okafor from next Wednesday at 09:15 to Thursday at 16:10 at Main Campus, Building B. Your new confirmation code is RVB-3M8P2. Please arrive 15 minutes early with a photo ID and your insurance card. To your questions:

1.

CUSTOMEROkay.

CUSTOMERRight. Go ahead. I'm listening.

AGENTThanks for waiting.

CUSTOMERSure.

CUSTOMERGotcha. Is there a fee for changing the appointment?

AGENTThere’s no fee for the change you just made. Riverbend’s policy is:

- Changes made more than 24 hours before the appointment are free. - Changes made within 24 hours of the appointment carry a $40 fee.

CUSTOMEROkay.

CUSTOMERThat's clear. And where should I park for the main campus building? B?

CUSTOMERHello?

CUSTOMERUh-huh. Go ahead. Where should I park for main campus building b?

AGENTFor Main Campus, Building B, you should park in Lot C.

Parking details

- LotC

- CostFree patient parking

- EntranceOn River Road

From Lot C, follow the signs for Building B.

CUSTOMERUnderstood. Does doctor Okafor accept Aetna insurance?

AGENTI don’t have access to provider-specific insurance panel details, so I can’t safely confirm whether Dr. Okafor accepts Aetna. To get an accurate answer, please either:

- Call the Riverbend Health Clinic front desk and ask specifically, “Does Dr. Okafor accept Aetna?” or

- Check with Aetna (website or member services) using their “Find a Provider” tool and search for Dr. Okafor at Riverbend Health Clinic. If you’d like, I can help you draft exactly what to ask when you call the clinic or Aetna.

CUSTOMERThanks for letting me know. I'll follow-up with the clinic or Aetna directly. I have the new appointment confirmed. Thursday at sixteen ten. Confirmation code RVB3M8P2. Thanks for your help, Alex. Goodbye.

Home services

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

CUSTOMERHi. I need some help right away. The pipe under my kitchen sink just burst. And water is spreading across the floor heading toward a power strip. I haven't shut the water off yet. Can you send someone else?

AGENTFirst, let’s get things safe on your end right now. 1. Stay away from that power strip. - Do not touch it or anything plugged into it. - If water has already reached it or is about to, do not step in the water near it. 2. Shut off power to that area if you can do it safely. - Go to your main electrical panel and switch off the breaker for the kitchen or, if you’re unsure which one, the main breaker. - Only do this if you can reach the panel without walking through water. 3. Shut off the water supply:

- Look under the sink for the shutoff valves (small handles on the pipes). Turn them clockwise until they stop.

CUSTOMEROkay.

CUSTOMERAlright. I'm turning the valve now. The water has stopped. So can you send someone out?

AGENTYes, we can. And nice job getting that valve turned off—that’s the most important step. Before we book, a couple quick safety reminders until we get there:

- Keep everyone (and pets) away from the wet area and that power strip.

CUSTOMERMhmm. I understand. I won't anything near the water or the power strip. So what's next for the visit?

AGENTGood—that’s perfect. I’ve started a ticket for you, and here’s what’s next. You’re already in our system, so I’ve got:

- Service address1480 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4B

If anything about that is wrong or has changed, tell me and I’ll fix it. For today’s visit

- Arrival windowtoday between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM

- Visit typeemergency plumbing (burst pipe under kitchen sink, water shut off at the valve)

Because you’re a Copperline Care member, your emergency callout fee is

- $99 emergency callout today

That covers the dispatch and diagnosis; any repair costs will be gone over with you before we do the work.

CUSTOMERRight. Actually,

AGENTNo problem—go ahead.

CUSTOMERYeah. Actually, I moved last month from Unit 4 B to Unit 4 D. So it should be 1482 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4 D. Can you update that?

AGENTGot it, thanks for telling me—that’s important.

CUSTOMEROh, sorry. It's 1418, not 1482. Just 1480 Luxfer Avenue, Unit 4 D. And could you tell me if anyone can come before two? The water is stopped. But I'd really like someone as soon as possible. Also, the gate code is pound 2719, and my callback number is (503) 555-0139. No. Zero one nine three.

AGENTThanks for clarifying—that helps a lot. Let me straighten everything out and answer your questions. First, just to confirm the details exactly as you gave them:

- Service address1418 Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4D

- Gate code#2719

- Callback number(503) 555-0193

If any of that isn’t right, tell me and I’ll fix it. On timingI checked our emergency schedule, and the earliest we have for today is still:

- Today, arrival window2:00 PM to 4:00 PM (emergency slot)

There’s nothing available earlier than 200 today on my end, but you’re on that first emergency window. Because you’re a Copperline Care member, your fee for today is:

- $99 emergency callout

That covers dispatch and diagnosis. The technician will quote any repair costs before doing the work, so you can approve or decline. Do you agree to the $99 emergency callout fee so I can lock in that 200–4:00 PM emergency visit under ticket number CPL-58210?

CUSTOMERUh-huh. Just to clarify, the address is 41480, not 1418. Larkspur Avenue, Unit 4 D. The gate code is Pound 2719. Callback number is (503) 555-0193. That's all correct now. And, yes, I agree to the $99 emergency callout fee. Please lock in the two to 4PM window. You tell me who is coming and how I will know they're on the way? Also, what's the ticket number again?

AGENTPerfect, thanks for sticking with the details—that really matters for emergencies. I’ve updated everything to what you just said.

CUSTOMERYes. That's right. Thank you, Alex. Goodbye.

Insurance

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

CUSTOMERYeah. I'm at home right now. I just got the baby here, and he's crying. So I'm a little flustered. Yeah. I'm safe. Thanks for asking. Can I tell you what happened?

AGENTI’m glad you’re safe, and it’s completely okay to be flustered—especially with a crying baby in the background. We’ll go step by step. Before we get into the details, I do need to ask:

Was anyone injured in the accident at all—either in your car or the other vehicle?

CUSTOMERNo. Nobody got hurt. Thank goodness. I was real worried about that. But everybody's okay. Is that alright?

AGENTThat’s absolutely alright, and I’m really glad everyone is okay. We’ll just take this one piece at a time. First, I need to pull up your policy. Do you have your Northgate Mutual auto policy number handy? If you don’t, I can look it up by the name on the policy and your date of birth.

CUSTOMERYeah. I've got it right here. NG4471903 oh, wait. Sorry. The last one is 2. So NG4471902. Is that gonna work?

AGENTYes, that works. I’ve got your policy pulled up for your 2021 Honda CR‑V under number NG4471902. Let’s go ahead and get your claim started. We’ll keep it simple so you can tend to the baby as needed. 1. When did the accident happen? 2. Where did it happen? 3. In your own words, what happened? Once we have that, I’ll ask for the other driver’s name, their insurance company, and their license plate, and whether the police came out.

CUSTOMEROkay. So it happened about twenty minutes ago. I was stopped at a red light at Southeast 5th Avenue and Alder Street. The other car hit the back of my

CUSTOMERjust slammed right into my bumper while I was sitting still. The back bumper's crushed and the rear wheel's rubbing, so I can't drive it. The police didn't come out. Is that alright?

AGENTYes, that’s alright. Police don’t have to come out for every accident, especially if no one is hurt.

CUSTOMERAlright. Do you need the other driver's details now? I've got those ready if you want them.

AGENTYes, please—that would be very helpful. I’ll need:

1. The other driver’s full name

2. Their insurance company (and policy number, if you have it)

3. Their license plate number and state

You can just read those off to me, and I’ll put them in the claim.

CUSTOMEROkay. The other driver's name is Kevin Lund. He's insured with Pacific Shore, but I don't have his policy number. His plate is 7KX like x-ray, R214. Oregon plate. Sorry. Is that enough to get started?

AGENTYes, that’s plenty, thank you.

CUSTOMERHello?

CUSTOMERAlright. Okay.

CUSTOMEROkay. Good. Can you tell me how much I'll have to pay? I'm just worried about what happens next.

AGENTYou’re all set to talk about that now, and I understand being worried—let me walk you through it as simply as I can. First, I’ve got your policy number as NG4471902 and your new claim number as NGM-904417. Based on your policy:

1. What you’ll have to pay (deductible)

- Your collision deductible is $500. - That meansif your Honda is repaired under your policy, you’re responsible for the first $500 of the covered repair bill. - If Kevin’s insurance accepts full responsibility and pays us back, that $500 may be reimbursed, but that part will be handled by your adjuster. 2. Rental car coverage

- You have rental coverage of $40 per day, up to 30 days, starting from the day the claim is opened. - If your vehicle is not drivable (and from your description, it isn’t), the adjuster can help you set up a rental within that limit. 3. Towing coverage

- Towing is covered up to 25 miles under your policy. - Since you said the rear wheel is rubbing and it’s not safe to drive, towing to a shop within that distance would be covered up to that limit.

CUSTOMERSorry. But since he hit

AGENTTotally understandable to have that question, and you don’t need to apologize. It sounds like you’re asking something like:

“Since he hit me from behind, does that mean I don’t have to pay anything?” Here’s how that works, based on your policy and what we know so far

1. Your deductible

- Your collision deductible is $500. - For now, if we repair your Honda under your policy, you would be responsible for that $500. - If Kevin’s insurance (Pacific Shore) accepts liability and reimburses Northgate for the loss, your adjuster may be able to get that $500 reimbursed to you. That decision depends on their investigation and the other company’s response. 2. Fault and “he hit me”

- Being rear‑ended often does mean the other driver is at fault, but it’s not automatic. - Your adjuster, Priya Shah, will contact you (within one business day) and also contact Pacific Shore to sort out fault and payment between the companies. 3. What happens next

- Your claim number is NGM-904417. - When Priya calls, she’ll

- Go over repair options and inspections. - Help with a rental car within your $40/day, 30‑day limit. - Explain exactly how and when your deductible would be collected and what happens if Pacific Shore pays. If you want, you can tell me what you were going to ask starting with “Since he hit…” and I’ll answer it as specifically as possible.

CUSTOMERYeah. So since he hit me, I shouldn't have to pay that deductible. Right? I mean, I was just sitting still at the light. Is that how it works, or am I on the hook for it?

AGENTIn your shoes, most people feel exactly the same way, and your logic makes sense: you were stopped, he hit you, so why should you pay. Here’s how it actually works in practice:

1. Right now, you *may* have to pay the $500 deductible up front. - Your collision coverage has a $500 deductible. - If we handle the repairs through your own policy, the shop or Northgate will typically collect that $500 from you as part of the repair process. 2. Then we go after his insurance. - Your adjuster (Priya Shah) will contact Pacific Shore and present the factsyou were stopped at a red light, he rear‑ended you. - In many rear‑end situations, the other driver is found at fault and their company pays. 3. If Kevin is found at fault and his insurer pays, your deductible can be reimbursed. - If Pacific Shore accepts liability and reimburses Northgate for the loss, your adjuster can usually get your $500 paid back to you. - That part depends on their investigation and the other company’s decision, which is why I can’t promise it, but it is very common in a clear rear‑end like you’ve described. So in plain terms:

- Short termyou might have to pay the $500 to get your car fixed through your policy. - Long term: if his insurance accepts fault and pays, you can get that $500 back. Your claim number again is NGM-904417, on policy NG4471902. The other driver’s plate I have is 7KXR214, Oregon, and the driver as Kevin Lund with Pacific Shore. Would you like me to go over what happens next step‑by‑step (repairs, rental, timing), or do you mainly just need clarity about the money side right now?

How these numbers are measured →