Roark Live Bench · Suite v1.3 · Sweep of 30 October 2026
Voice AI models, ranked on live phone calls.
Every speech-to-text, language model and text-to-speech model, run in every combination on the same real call to the same agent. A model is ranked on every stack it runs in; the stacks are the evidence.
Our picks
Roark scoreTask completionMedian responseCost per minute- Best overallUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Turbo v2.570 / 10096%4.0 s$0.12
- Best valueUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-6.1 Sol + Coda69 / 10098%4.0 s$0.040
- FastestGrok Voice 3.066 / 10087%1.9 s$0.086
- Best speech-to-speechGPT Live 1 (Sol)65 / 10085%2.3 s$0.061
- Best in customer supportGrok Voice 3.085 / 10095%1.7 s$0.083
- Best in healthcareUniversal-3.5 Pro + Gemini 3.8 Flash + Flash v2.575 / 10097%4.3 s$0.10
- Best in home servicesGPT Live 1 (Luna)79 / 10095%2.1 s$0.052
- Best in insuranceUniversal-3.5 Pro + GPT-4o + Sonic-3.676 / 10098%3.2 s$0.042
The read
- 430 of 642 cascades complete the task in at least 90% of calls, and the top 10 sit within 1 point of each other. What separates the top stacks is speed and cost.
- Median response time runs from 2.0 s to 6.2 s on the same agent and the same caller, a spread of 4.2 s that comes entirely from the models behind it.
- No stack wins everything. The fastest, Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 + ElevenLabs Turbo v2.5 at 2.0 s, ranks 559 of 642 on task completion; the most complete is Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD at 99%.
- The language model matters most: swapping it moves task completion by 7 points, against 3 for the speech engine and 2 for the transcriber.
- The fastest speech-to-speech model answers 0.1 s sooner than the fastest cascade, and its completion rate sits 12 points below the best cascade.
Cascade vs Speech-to-Speech
The first choice to make. A cascade chains three models: one transcribes, one decides what to say, one speaks. A speech-to-speech model does all three at once. Both run the same agent on the same calls here.
- Cascades lead on task completion, tool use, time to first word, barge-in handling and cost per task; speech-to-speech leads on response time. Neither wins outright, so the right choice depends on what your calls need.
- Speech-to-speech costs 1.6 times as much per completed task: $0.24 for speech-to-speech against $0.15 for cascades.
- The biggest difference is response time: 3.8 s for cascades against 2.1 s for speech-to-speech.
| Measure | Cascade | Speech-to-speech |
|---|---|---|
| Task completion | 94% (leads) | 85% |
| Tool use | 78% (leads) | 78% |
| Time to first word | 0.8 s (leads) | 1.1 s |
| Response time | 3.8 s | 2.1 s (leads) |
| Barge-in handling | 100% (leads) | 96% |
| Cost per task | $0.15 (leads) | $0.24 |
The three strongest of each, averaged. Cascades: AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + Rime Coda; Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-4.1 + Rime Coda; AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro + Google Gemini 3.8 Flash + Rime Coda. Speech-to-speech: grok-voice-think-fast-2.0; gpt-live-1 (backend gpt-6-luna); grok-voice-3.0. Each measure is scored 0 to 100 on its own scale, further out is better; the table gives the same figures in their own units.
Which to use
- Choose speech-to-speech when the pause matters more than the outcome: short transactional calls, callers who interrupt, queues where every half second costs you callers. Expect to pay more, and choose the model carefully (grok-voice-3.0 leads here).
- Choose a cascade when the call has to complete, when cost matters, or when you need to see which stage to fix. It is 12 points ahead on task completion here.
- Costs are what each stack’s providers charged for these calls, at the rates in effect when they ran. Telephony and hosting are not included.
Speech-to-Text
The transcriber turns the caller's speech into text. It decides what the agent thinks it heard, and nothing after it can start until it finishes.
- AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro, AssemblyAI Universal-3.5 Pro, Deepgram Nova-3 and Speechmatics Enhanced (realtime) are level: none leads by more than the margin of error. Of them, AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro costs least, at $0.030 a call. Avoid Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD): last on semantic word error rate (2.2%).
- Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) delivers its transcript in 0.49 s, OpenAI Whisper-1 in 1.93 s: 1.44 s added to every turn of the call.
- AssemblyAI Universal-3.6 Pro is the most accurate: it changes the meaning of 0.9% of the caller's words, against 2.2% for Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD).
- In 341 of 648 cascades the transcriber is the slowest step of the turn, whichever model runs it.
Roark score, best first
| # | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Universal-3.6 ProAssemblyAI | 90 / 100. Semantic word error rate 0.9%, 61.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 0.9%(among the best) | 0.89 s(among the best) | $0.030 |
| 2 | Universal-3.5 ProAssemblyAI | 84 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 55.7 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.90 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 1.1%(among the best) | 0.90 s | $0.030 |
| 3 | Nova-3Deepgram | 82 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 53.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 1.1%(among the best) | 0.89 s(among the best) | $0.031 |
| 4 | Enhanced (realtime)Speechmatics | 82 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.1%, 53.3 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.98 s, 28.6 of 29 points(among the best) | 1.1%(among the best) | 0.98 s | $0.054 |
| 5 | Linden-1Speechmatics | 79 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.3%, 50.0 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.99 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 1.3% | 0.99 s | $0.020(among the best) |
| 6 | Nova-2Deepgram | 71 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.5%, 42.2 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.89 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 1.5% | 0.89 s(among the best) | $0.023(among the best) |
| 7 | Standard (realtime)Speechmatics | 66 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.7%, 37.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.96 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 1.7% | 0.96 s | $0.031 |
| 8 | Whisper-1OpenAI | 56 / 100. Semantic word error rate 1.4%, 45.5 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 1.93 s, 10.9 of 29 points | 1.4% | 1.93 s | $0.025 |
| 9 | Linden-1 (own VAD)Speechmatics | 52 / 100. Semantic word error rate 2.2%, 23.1 of 71 points; Time to final transcript 0.49 s, 28.6 of 29 points | 2.2% | 0.49 s(among the best) | $0.020(among the best) |
Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.
Language model
The language model decides what the agent says and does. It has the most influence on whether the task gets done, and usually takes the largest share of each turn.
- Pick OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol: it leads on task completion (95%), tool use (77%) and instruction following (4.2 / 5). If speed matters more, Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 is the quickest, at 0.36 s, and completes 91%. Avoid OpenAI GPT-4o: last on task completion (88%).
- Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 starts answering in 0.36 s, Google Gemini 3.8 Flash in 1.47 s: 1.11 s added to every turn of the call.
- OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol uses its tools most reliably: it handles its tools without a mistake on 77% of calls, against 38% for OpenAI GPT-5.1.
- In 161 of 648 cascades the language model is the slowest step of the turn, whichever model runs it.
Roark score, best first
| # | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI | 66 / 100. Task completion 95%, 27.0 of 36 points; Tool use 77%, 15.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.3 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.97 s, 12.4 of 18 points(among the best) | 95%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 77%(among the best) | 0.97 s | 73% | $0.019(among the best) |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic | 61 / 100. Task completion 94%, 25.1 of 36 points; Tool use 72%, 11.8 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.90 s, 13.3 of 18 points(among the best) | 94%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 72%(among the best) | 0.90 s | – | $0.138 |
| 3 | Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle | 51 / 100. Task completion 95%, 26.5 of 36 points; Tool use 62%, 6.7 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.1 of 18 points; Time to first token 1.47 s, 6.4 of 18 points(among the best) | 95%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 62%(among the best) | 1.47 s | – | $0.016(among the best) |
| 4 | GPT-4.1OpenAI | 50 / 100. Task completion 92%, 21.2 of 36 points; Tool use 48%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.52 s, 18.0 of 18 points | 92% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 48% | 0.52 s | 82%(among the best) | $0.022 |
| 5 | Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic | 49 / 100. Task completion 91%, 19.4 of 36 points; Tool use 47%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 11.0 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.36 s, 18.2 of 18 points | 91% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 47% | 0.36 s(among the best) | – | $0.062 |
| 6 | GPT-4o miniOpenAI | 47 / 100. Task completion 90%, 17.4 of 36 points; Tool use 51%, 0.7 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.8 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.45 s, 18.2 of 18 points | 90% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 51% | 0.45 s(among the best) | 81%(among the best) | $0.002(among the best) |
| 7 | GPT-5.1OpenAI | 44 / 100. Task completion 89%, 17.0 of 36 points; Tool use 38%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.1 / 5, 10.1 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.59 s, 17.1 of 18 points | 89% | 4.1 / 5 | 38% | 0.59 s | 74%(among the best) | $0.031 |
| 8 | GPT-4oOpenAI | 44 / 100. Task completion 88%, 15.0 of 36 points; Tool use 50%, 0.0 of 27 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 10.9 of 18 points; Time to first token 0.45 s, 18.2 of 18 points | 88% | 4.2 / 5(among the best) | 50% | 0.45 s(among the best) | – | $0.027 |
Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.
Text-to-Speech
The speech engine is the voice the caller hears, and the last step before they hear anything.
- Cartesia Sonic-3.6, ElevenLabs v4 Turbo and Cartesia Sonic-3.5 are level: none leads by more than the margin of error. Of them, Cartesia Sonic-3.5 costs least, at $0.165 a call. Avoid OpenAI TTS-1 HD: last on readback accuracy (80%), word error rate (8.7%) and time to first audio byte (2.09 s).
- ElevenLabs v4 Turbo starts speaking in 0.11 s, OpenAI TTS-1 HD in 2.09 s: 1.97 s added to every turn of the call.
- Cartesia Sonic-3.6 is the most accurate: it reads codes, amounts and dates back correctly 87% of the time, against 80% for OpenAI TTS-1 HD.
- Cartesia Sonic-3.6 sounds the most human: 3.8 / 5, against 3.4 / 5 for ElevenLabs Flash v2.5.
- In 99 of 648 cascades the speech engine is the slowest step of the turn, most often with OpenAI TTS-1 HD (54 of them).
Roark score, best first
| # | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sonic-3.6Cartesia | 77 / 100. Readback accuracy 87%, 25.6 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.2%, 14.5 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.12 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 12.1 of 13 points(among the best) | 6.2% | 87%(among the best) | 3.8 / 5(among the best) | 99% | 0.12 s(among the best) | $0.168 |
| 2 | v4 TurboElevenLabs | 77 / 100. Readback accuracy 87%, 25.1 of 38 points; Word error rate 5.7%, 15.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.11 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.2 of 13 points(among the best) | 5.7%(among the best) | 87%(among the best) | 3.6 / 5 | 98% | 0.11 s(among the best) | $0.470 |
| 3 | Sonic-3.5Cartesia | 77 / 100. Readback accuracy 86%, 24.6 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.2%, 14.6 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.13 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.4 of 13 points(among the best) | 6.2% | 86%(among the best) | 3.8 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | 0.13 s | $0.165 |
| 4 | Sonic-3Cartesia | 73 / 100. Readback accuracy 85%, 23.3 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.9%, 12.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.17 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 12.1 of 13 points | 6.9% | 85% | 3.4 / 5 | 99% | 0.17 s | $0.165 |
| 5 | Turbo v2.5ElevenLabs | 71 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 19.0 of 38 points; Word error rate 5.7%, 15.6 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.15 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.5 of 13 points | 5.7%(among the best) | 80% | 3.4 / 5 | 98% | 0.15 s | $0.451 |
| 6 | Flash v2.5ElevenLabs | 70 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 18.5 of 38 points; Word error rate 6%, 14.9 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.12 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 98%, 11.5 of 13 points | 6%(among the best) | 80% | 3.4 / 5 | 98% | 0.12 s(among the best) | $0.437 |
| 7 | CodaRime | 68 / 100. Readback accuracy 83%, 21.7 of 38 points; Word error rate 8.1%, 9.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 0.18 s, 25.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 99%, 11.8 of 13 points | 8.1% | 83% | 3.7 / 5(among the best) | 99% | 0.18 s | $0.116(among the best) |
| 8 | TTS-1OpenAI | 55 / 100. Readback accuracy 82%, 21.0 of 38 points; Word error rate 6.1%, 14.8 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 1.13 s, 7.1 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.5 of 13 points | 6.1% | 82% | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | 1.13 s | $0.036(among the best) |
| 9 | TTS-1 HDOpenAI | 39 / 100. Readback accuracy 80%, 18.3 of 38 points; Word error rate 8.7%, 8.4 of 25 points; Time to first audio byte 2.09 s, 0.0 of 25 points; Voice consistency 100%, 12.4 of 13 points | 8.7% | 80% | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | 2.09 s | $0.065(among the best) |
Open a model to see where it ranks and the stacks it works best in.
Speech-to-Speech models
One model listens, reasons and speaks, so there is nothing to swap and no stages to split. Each is judged on the whole call, with the same calls and the same scoring as every cascade.
- The model matters as much as the architecture: xAI Grok Voice 3.0 completes 87% of tasks, ElevenLabs Realtime v1 Mini 42%.
- xAI Grok Voice 3.0 answers in 1.9 s against 4.2 s for Google Gemini 2.5 Flash native audio.
- Price varies as much as quality: $0.06 per completed task for Amazon Nova 2 Sonic, $0.69 for OpenAI GPT Realtime 2.
Roark score, best first
Whiskers show the 95% interval. The shaded models tie for first: these calls cannot separate them.
| # | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1= (tied) | GPT Live 1 (Sol)OpenAI | 65 / 100±3.8. Task completion 85%, 6.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.3 s, 16.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.2 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 87%, 10.2 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.4 s, 3.9 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 85%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5 | 87%(among the best) | 2.3 s(among the best) | 1.4 s | 77% | 3.1 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.24 |
| 2= (tied) | Grok Voice 3.0xAI | 66 / 100±4.7. Task completion 87%, 8.0 of 23 points; Response time 1.9 s, 18.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.5 / 5, 10.5 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 66%, 4.4 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.9 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 87%(among the best) | 4.5 / 5(among the best) | 66% | 1.9 s(among the best) | 0.9 s | 94% | 3.0 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.26 |
| 3= (tied) | GPT Live 1 (Luna)OpenAI | 65 / 100±3.5. Task completion 85%, 5.7 of 23 points; Response time 2.3 s, 16.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 86%, 9.9 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.8 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 85%(among the best) | 4.2 / 5 | 86%(among the best) | 2.3 s(among the best) | 1.5 s | 93% | 3.1 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.21 |
| 4= (tied) | Grok Voice Think Fast 2.0xAI | 65 / 100±3.7. Task completion 82%, 2.8 of 23 points; Response time 2.2 s, 17.4 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.6 / 5, 10.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 82%, 8.6 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.9 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points(among the best) | 82% | 4.6 / 5(among the best) | 82%(among the best) | 2.2 s(among the best) | 0.9 s | 100%(among the best) | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.26 |
| 5= (tied) | Gemini 3.8 LiveGoogle | 53 / 100±4.8. Task completion 78%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.8 s, 14.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.3 / 5, 8.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 69%, 5.2 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.6 s, 3.6 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 78% | 4.3 / 5(among the best) | 69% | 2.8 s | 1.6 s | 100%(among the best) | 4.1 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.14(among the best) |
| 6= (tied) | GPT Realtime 2.1OpenAI | 53 / 100±5.7. Task completion 78%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.6 s, 15.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.6 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 75%, 6.8 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.8 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 99%, 4.3 of 5 points | 78% | 3.8 / 5 | 75% | 2.6 s | 0.8 s(among the best) | 83% | 3.9 / 5(among the best) | 99% | $0.43 |
| 7= (tied) | Ultravox v0.7Ultravox | 48 / 100±5.0. Task completion 79%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.4 s, 16.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.7 / 5, 4.9 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 61%, 3.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.6 s, 3.6 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 79% | 3.7 / 5 | 61% | 2.4 s | 1.6 s | 94% | 3.6 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.22 |
| 8= (tied) | Gemini 3.1 Flash Live (preview)Google | 48 / 100±5.1. Task completion 80%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.7 s, 15.1 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 8.0 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 38%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.8 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 80% | 4.2 / 5 | 38% | 2.7 s | 1.5 s | 100%(among the best) | 4.0 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.15 |
| 9= (tied) | GPT Realtime 2OpenAI | 48 / 100±6.7. Task completion 76%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.9 s, 14.0 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 64%, 3.7 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.8 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 76% | 3.8 / 5 | 64% | 2.9 s | 0.8 s(among the best) | 91% | 3.7 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.69 |
| 10= (tied) | Nova 2 SonicAmazon | 46 / 100±5.1. Task completion 69%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 3.0 s, 13.8 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.2 / 5, 7.9 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 48%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.5 s, 3.7 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 69% | 4.2 / 5 | 48% | 3.0 s | 1.5 s | 100%(among the best) | 3.5 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.06(among the best) |
| 11= (tied) | Realtime v1 MaxElevenLabs | 47 / 100±7.5. Task completion 56%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.6 s, 15.6 of 18 points; Instruction following 4.0 / 5, 6.7 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 40%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.7 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 56% | 4.0 / 5 | 40% | 2.6 s | 0.7 s(among the best) | 76% | 3.9 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.65 |
| 12= (tied) | Realtime v1 MiniElevenLabs | 45 / 100±7.1. Task completion 42%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.7 s, 15.1 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.8 / 5, 5.1 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 34%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 0.7 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 42% | 3.8 / 5 | 34% | 2.7 s | 0.7 s(among the best) | 94% | 3.4 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.64 |
| 13= (tied) | GPT Realtime 2.1 miniOpenAI | 44 / 100±6.7. Task completion 70%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 2.8 s, 14.5 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.6 / 5, 4.4 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 51%, 0.3 of 14 points; Time to first word 1.0 s, 4.5 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 70% | 3.6 / 5 | 51% | 2.8 s | 1.0 s | 84% | 3.9 / 5(among the best) | 100%(among the best) | $0.14(among the best) |
| 14 | Gemini 2.5 Flash native audioGoogle | 36 / 100±5.4. Task completion 77%, 0.0 of 23 points; Response time 4.2 s, 8.2 of 18 points; Instruction following 3.9 / 5, 6.2 of 14 points; Semantic word error rate 1.1% (field median, not measured), 10.6 of 14 points; Tool use 40%, 0.0 of 14 points; Time to first word 3.4 s, 0.9 of 5 points; Readback accuracy 84% (field median, not measured), 2.7 of 5 points; Word error rate 5.9% (field median, not measured), 2.8 of 5 points; Voice consistency 100%, 4.5 of 5 points | 77% | 3.9 / 5 | 40% | 4.2 s | 3.4 s | 100%(among the best) | 3.7 / 5 | 100%(among the best) | $0.08(among the best) |
Open a model for its full report, every figure it was scored on and the calls behind them.
Every stack
The evidence behind the model boards: each combination on its own calls, scored on the same recipe. Open a stack for its full report, every figure it was scored on and the calls behind them.
Roark score, top 15
Whiskers show the 95% interval. The shaded stacks tie for first: these calls cannot separate them.
Each score carries its 95% margin of error. A rank is the best place a stack could hold once every margin is allowed for, so stacks the calls cannot tell apart share one and are listed by the low end of their margin; hover a rank for the worst place it could hold. 85 stacks are level with the leader: their calls cannot tell them apart. Among them, 36 OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol, 22 Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5, 19 Google Gemini 3.8 Flash, 4 speech-to-speech, 3 Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 and 1 OpenAI GPT-4o mini; 42 AssemblyAI, 20 Deepgram and 19 Speechmatics; 37 Cartesia, 36 ElevenLabs, 7 Rime and 1 OpenAI. A cascade's figures are 25% its own calls and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice. Not ranked here for missing data: Speechmatics Linden-1 + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD (no response time or tool use or readback accuracy or voice consistency).
By industry
Each industry ranked on its own calls: the same five callers, its own tasks and tools. A stack has a handful of calls in each, so a cascade is ranked on what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry, and a speech-to-speech model on its own calls there. Pairings show on the main board. Each row reads across: the main board's figure first, then every industry's on the same figure.
No stack matches these filters.
No stack matches
Each industry column is that industry's own board, every row it ranks. A dash is a row the industry does not rank on this figure; the arrow beside an industry opens its full board.
How it works
Every number on this page comes from real phone calls, placed and scored the same way for every stack.
Real calls, four industries, five callers
Roark places real phone calls over the public phone network to a reference agent for each of four industries: rescheduling a clinic appointment, booking an urgent home repair, opening an auto insurance claim and fixing an internet outage. Each agent has its own prompt and tools, identical for every stack. The tasks carry the details real calls trip on: a corrected date of birth, a policy number spelled out, a constraint added halfway through.
Every industry is called by the same five simulated callers: a quiet US English line, a Spanish-accented caller on a city street, an Indian English caller in a busy café, a flustered Southern caller with a baby crying, and a fast caller who interrupts over construction noise. They are equally clear about what they want, so a call fails because of the agent, not the caller. Only the models change, so any difference on the board comes from them.
Each caller rings each industry once for a cascade and four times for a speech-to-speech model. A cascade's figures also draw on its parts, heard in dozens of other stacks; a speech-to-speech model has only its own calls, so it takes more of them.
That makes industries comparable over the same callers, and callers over the same tasks, and the board can be re-ranked by either. One caller within one industry is too few calls to judge, so the board never shows it.
656
stacks
20
calls per stack
13,956
calls scored
Every model, in every combination
9 transcribers, 8 language models and 9 voices are run in every combination with each other, beside 14 speech-to-speech models. A model's own figures pool every stack it runs in, adjusted for its partners in each one, so every model is compared as if it ran with the same partners. A transcriber's figure rests on hundreds of calls with every language model and every voice, not on one lucky pairing.
That measures a model where it actually works: inside a running agent, on live phone audio, through interruptions, corrections and real turn-taking. A test that feeds a model clean audio files or one prompt at a time never sees any of that.
One score, weighted by what matters on a call
Each section ranks on a Roark score. Every figure scores 0 to 100 between two published points: full marks where doing better makes no difference to the caller, zero where the call breaks down. Each then counts at its weight, and the weights follow one order everywhere: whether the caller got what they rang for, then whether the agent got it right, then speed.
A stack, cascade or speech-to-speech, is scored on the outcome and the reply first, then on what each of its components got right on its own calls: the words its transcriber got wrong in a way that changes the meaning, whether its voice read codes and amounts back right and kept one steady voice, and whether its tools were handled. How human a voice sounds is shown on the boards and not scored. A component that leads its section lifts every stack that carries it, by the same recipe for every stack. A figure a stack cannot carry, such as a semantic word error rate for a speech-to-speech model with no transcript, is credited at the field median, so the stack is neither flattered nor punished for it.
On a full sweep each cascade's figure is 25% what its own calls measured and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice, fitted across the whole sweep. The split is the same for every stack, so a lucky run does not lead and a stack's score does not move with how noisy its calls were. In an industry a stack has a handful of calls, so a cascade's figure there is what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry's calls, and a speech-to-speech model's is its own calls there. How a particular pairing beats or misses its parts shows on the main board, where each stack has all of its calls. The best overall, best value and best speech-to-speech picks, and the best stack in each industry, are each the one whose score is highest at the low end of its margin of error, so a few lucky calls cannot carry a stack past one whose score rests on hundreds. Stacks that share a rank are listed by score, so the pick can sit below a higher score it cannot be told from, and its reason says how many stacks are level with it.
That order comes from real-world voice agent calls, where getting the conversation right predicts how a call ends more strongly than speed does. The latency points come from the same calls: replying faster than about 2 seconds made no measurable difference, and calls went measurably worse once the agent took more than about 3 seconds to reply.
Stacks and speech-to-speech
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Task completionscenario_adherence_check | 23% | 100% | 80% |
| An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy. On a full sweep, a cascade's figure is 25% what its own calls (20 or more) measured and 75% what every other stack shows about its transcriber, language model and voice, the same split for every stack, so a lucky run does not lead. Where the sweep is too small for that, and for a speech-to-speech model, the figure is the stack's own. In an industry a stack has a handful of calls, so a cascade's figure there is what its transcriber, language model and voice show across every stack in that industry's calls, and a speech-to-speech model's is its own calls there. How a particular pairing beats or misses its parts shows on the main board, where each stack has all of its calls. | |||
Response timeresponse_time | 18% | 2.0 s | 6.0 s |
| In real calls, replying faster than 2 s made no measurable difference, and calls went worse past 3 s. | |||
Instruction followinginstruction_follow | 14% | 5.0 / 5 | 3.0 / 5 |
| Every model scores between 3 and 5 on the judge's 1 to 5 scale, so that is the range. | |||
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate | 14% | 0.5% | 3% |
| At 0.5% the best transcribers change the meaning of one word in two hundred on phone audio; at 3% one word in thirty sends the agent the wrong way. | |||
Tool usetool_use | 14% | 100% | 50% |
| An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on. | |||
Time to first wordtime_to_first_word | 5% | 1.0 s | 4.0 s |
| A greeting within 1 s sounds natural; 4 s of silence sounds like a dead line. | |||
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy | 5% | 100% | 60% |
| Reading a code, amount or date wrong breaks the task it was for; the weakest voices get two in five wrong. | |||
Word error ratetts_word_error_rate | 5% | 2% | 12% |
| At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong. | |||
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check | 5% | 100% | 80% |
| A voice that changes speaker on one call in five is not one a business can put its name to. | |||
Shown, not scored: Turn budget, Barge-in handlingbarge_in_yield_appropriateness, Human-likenessvoice_human_likeness
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per task
Language model
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Task completionscenario_adherence_check | 36% | 100% | 80% |
| An agent that completes fewer than four calls in five is not fit to deploy. | |||
Tool usetool_use | 27% | 100% | 50% |
| An agent that mishandles its tools on half its calls cannot be trusted with the systems it runs on. | |||
Instruction followinginstruction_follow | 18% | 5.0 / 5 | 3.0 / 5 |
| Every model scores between 3 and 5 on the judge's 1 to 5 scale, so that is the range. | |||
Time to first tokenllm_time_to_first_token | 18% | 0.50 s | 2.00 s |
| Under 0.5 s is not noticeable; at 2 s the first token alone takes two thirds of the 3 s past which real calls go worse. | |||
Shown, not scored: Prompt cache hitsllm_prompt_cache_hit_rate
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call
Speech-to-Text
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Semantic word error ratestt_semantic_word_error_rate | 71% | 0.5% | 3% |
| At 0.5% the best transcribers change the meaning of one word in two hundred on phone audio; at 3% one word in thirty sends the agent the wrong way. | |||
Time to final transcriptstt_time_to_final_transcript | 29% | 1.00 s | 2.50 s |
| The fastest transcribers finish in about 1 s; past 2.5 s the transcript alone uses most of a natural reply time. | |||
Shown, not scored: Word error ratestt_word_error_rate
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call
Text-to-Speech
| Figure | Weight | Full marks | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
Readback accuracytts_entity_readback_accuracy | 38% | 100% | 60% |
| Reading a code, amount or date wrong breaks the task it was for; the weakest voices get two in five wrong. | |||
Word error ratetts_word_error_rate | 25% | 2% | 12% |
| At 2% the voice says what it was given; at 12% one word in eight comes out wrong. | |||
Time to first audio bytetts_time_to_first_byte | 25% | 0.20 s | 1.50 s |
| Under 0.2 s is not noticeable; 1.5 s is half the point where calls go worse. | |||
Voice consistencyvoice_consistency_check | 13% | 100% | 80% |
| A voice that changes speaker on one call in five is not one a business can put its name to. | |||
Shown, not scored: Human-likenessvoice_human_likeness
Counted only with price factored in: Cost per call
Factor in price and cost takes 25% of the score; the other weights keep their proportions. Price is scored on a log scale, so each doubling costs the same points.
A figure listed as shown, not scored is on the section’s boards and outside its score. Where a section has not collected a scored figure yet, the others share its weight.
Every call recorded and judged
Every call is recorded. Judge models score each transcript for the outcome and the conversation, and the timings come from the recording. Every figure links to the calls behind it.
Roark is on both sides of every call: it plays the caller, so it keeps the exact text its caller said, and it runs the agent under test, so it sees what the agent’s transcriber heard and what its model wrote for its voice. The transcript and voice figures come from lining those up, with no hand-made transcript in between. Each carries a margin from the synthetic voice or Roark’s transcriber in the loop. Every model faces the same ones under the same conditions, so the figures compare models on the same calls through the same voice and the same ear, though those slips need not fall evenly on each model. The rates will not match a vendor’s figure on a curated set; read them against each other.
An example: one call from this sweep
Speechmatics Linden-1 (own VAD) + OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol + OpenAI TTS-1 HD, 30 October 2026. Highlighted turns are the ones that affected a score. Every stack's report links to its calls.
See how your own agent compares
Roark runs the same kind of calls against your agent, on your scenarios, with the same scoring.
Rank on Roark score
#1of 655 stacks
58 / 100
The leader
Where it ranks
Its models
Task completion
Task completion
How much of the caller’s task the agent completed: the share of the scenario’s checks a judge model found met in the transcript, averaged over calls. Before v1.3, the share of calls judged 4 or better out of 5.
#110 of 662 on the board · best 99%
Flow adherence
How closely the agent followed the intended conversation flow, judged per call. 5 = fully followed.
#100 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5
Instruction following
How well the agent stuck to the instructions in its own prompt. 5 = followed throughout.
#13 of 662 on the board · best 5.0 / 5
Turn-taking
Barge-in handling
When the caller interrupts, how often the agent made the right call: yielding to a real correction, and holding the floor through a filler.
#1 of 347 on the board · best 100%
Incorrect interruptions
How often the agent interrupted the caller when it should have kept listening.
#1 of 662 on the board · best 0%
Overtalk
Share of the conversation where both sides were speaking over each other.
#1 of 662 on the board · best 0.0%
Agent self-cutoffs
Times the agent cut its own sentence off mid-word.
#1 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
Understanding & effort
Caller effort
How hard the caller had to work: repeating themselves, correcting, re-explaining. 1 = effortless.
Not scored by this sweep.
Repeated-info loops
Times per call the agent re-asked for something the caller had already given.
#180 of 494 on the board · best 0.0 per call
Speech-to-Text
Semantic word error rate
The caller's words the agent's transcriber got wrong in a way that changes the meaning, as a judge reads each difference.
#635 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.
#633 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.
#420 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.
#377 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.
#569 of 660 on the board · best 4.3 / 5
Voice consistency
Share of calls where every line the agent spoke was the same speaker, with no change of speaker, gender or language voice partway. It checks who is speaking, not how they sound.
Not scored by this sweep.
#1 of 660 on the board · best 100%
Latency
Response time
The silence between the caller finishing and the agent starting to speak, measured from the recording on every turn of the call.
#516 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.
#82 of 662 on the board · best 0.45 s
Latency spikes
Turns where the response took far longer than the rest of the conversation.
#496 of 662 on the board · best 0.0 per call
By industry
| Industry | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare | 89% | 4.72 s | — |
| Home services | 98% | 4.55 s | — |
| Insurance | 95% | 4.53 s | — |
| Customer support | 100% | 4.41 s | — |
By caller
| Caller | Task completion | Latency P50 | Barge-in handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| US English, quiet line | 98% | 4.44 s | — |
| Spanish-accented English, city street | 96% | 4.52 s | — |
| Indian English, busy café | — | — | — |
| Southern US, flustered, crying baby | 98% | 4.27 s | — |
| Fast and interrupting, construction outside | 94% | 4.90 s | 100% |
The calls behind the numbers
Customer support
AGENTBrightwave Internet support, this is Alex. What’s going on with your service?
CUSTOMERHi, Alex. Oh, yeah. I work from home and my internet has been down for about two hours. There's a road crew digging up the street outside, so I was wondering if that might be the cause. I already rebooted the gateway twice and checked all the cables. The internet light is blinking orange. Can you check what's happening on your end? My account number is BW883017. Sorry, last digit is one.
AGENTI have your account number as BW883011. I’ll check for an outage first—you won’t need to repeat the reboots or cable checks.
CUSTOMEROkay, perfect. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure because I already tried everything here. So do you see any outage reports in my area? And do you think the road crew outside could be the.
AGENTThere’s no reported outage or maintenance in your area. The roadwork could be related, but I can’t confirm that yet. I’ll test the line to your gateway next.
CUSTOMERAll right, go ahead. Let me know what you find, please. The traffic is pretty loud out here, so if you need me to check something, just let me know.
AGENTThe signal to your gateway is good, but the gateway isn’t registering with our network. The test recommends a remote reset, which I’ll send now. No need to check anything yet.
CUSTOMERYeah. That's fine. I already restarted it myself a couple of times, so let's try your remote reset. I'll wait for the light to change and let you know what happens.
AGENTThe remote reset has completed, and your gateway is now registered and online. Give your devices about two minutes to reconnect, then try opening a webpage and let me know if it loads.
CUSTOMEROkay. The internet light just went solid white. How long should it take for everything to reconnect? And since I lost two hours of work, can I get a credit for the downtime?
AGENTYour devices should reconnect within about two minutes of the reset. With the light now solid white, try loading a webpage. I’ve applied a $10.00 downtime credit to account BW883011. It will appear on your next bill.
CUSTOMERAll right, thanks for the update. So about the credit. I lost two hours of work. Can you make it more than that?
AGENTI understand—two hours offline is a big disruption when you work from home. The credit tool applied $10.00, and I don’t have an option to increase that amount. You can request a further review from our billing team.
CUSTOMEROkay, that would help. Please ask your billing team to review it. Is there anything else I need to do on my end? If not, then for your help. Alex. Goodbye.
AGENTI’m sorry—I can’t submit
AGENTa billing review from here. Please contact Brightwave billing to request a larger credit; the $10.00 credit is already applied for your next bill. If your devices are back online, there’s nothing else you need to do. Thanks for calling, and goodbye.
Healthcare
AGENTRiverbend Health Clinic, this is Alex. How can I help you today?
CUSTOMERHi, this is Lucia Ramirez. I have a dermatology appointment next Wednesday morning, but I need to move it because I got scheduled for a work shift. Then can you help me reschedule?
AGENTOf course, Lucia Ramirez. Could you give me your date of birth so I can verify your record?
CUSTOMERYeah. March 17th, 1948. Oh, sorry. 1984. March 17th. 24.
AGENTJust to confirm, Lucia Ramirez: is your date
CUSTOMERYes. That's right. Ramirez. March four. Oh, I can only come after 3 p.m., if that's possible.
AGENTI’ll look for times after 3 p.m. First, could you confirm your full date of birth? I heard March 17, then March 4, and want to make sure I have the correct month, day, and year.
CUSTOMERYeah, sure. It's March 17th, one seven, 1984.
CUSTOMERHello.
AGENTI’m here, Lucia. I verified your date of birth as March 17, 1984. Your dermatology appointment is with Dr. Okafor next Wednesday at 9:15 a.m. The available times after 3 p.m. are Tuesday at 3:45
CUSTOMERTuesday is actually don't work for me after all, because I pick up my daughter. What about Friday? Do you have anything after 3 p.m. on Friday?
AGENTThe only Friday opening listed with Dr. Okafor is 11:30 a.m., so it doesn’t meet your after-3-p.m. requirement. Thursday at 4:10 p.m. is available. Would that work for you?
CUSTOMERYeah, Thursday at 4:10 p.m.. Works for me. Go ahead and book that. Oh, is there a fee for changing the appointment?
AGENTChanges made more than 24 hours before your original appointment are free; changes within 24 hours carry a $40 fee. I don’t have enough date information to confirm whether that fee applies here. Would you still like me to move your appointment with Dr. Okafor
CUSTOMERYes. Please move it to Thursday at 4:10 p.m.. Could you tell me where do I park when I come in?
AGENTLucia Ramirez, your dermatology appointment with Dr. Okafor has been moved to Thursday at 4:10 p.m., at Main Campus, Building B. Your confirmation code is RVB-3M8P2 — R, V, B, dash, 3, M, 8, P, 2. Parking is free in Lot C, with the entrance on River Road. Please arrive 15 minutes early, at 3:55 p.m., with your photo ID and insurance card.
CUSTOMEROkay. Got it. Does Doctor Okafor accept Aetna insurance? And could you repeat that confirmation code for me.
AGENTYour confirmation code is RVB-3M8P2 — R, V, B, dash,
CUSTOMERRVB3M8P2. And just to check does Doctor Okafor take Aetna insurance?
AGENTYes, you have the code right: RVB-3M8P2. I can’t verify whether Dr. Okafor accepts your Aetna plan with the information available here. Please check with the clinic’s billing team or
CUSTOMERAll right. Thanks for your help. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re welcome, Lucia. Goodbye!
Home services
AGENTCopperline Home Services, this is Alex. What can I help you with?
CUSTOMERHi, Alex. I have an urgent situation. A pipe under my kitchen sink has burst and water is spreading across the floor toward a power strip. I need someone to come out right away. What should I do first?
AGENTKeep away from the water and power strip—don’t touch or unplug it, and keep others and pets away. If you can reach your breaker
CUSTOMERGot it. I'm keeping everyone away from the area. Can you tell me how to shut off the water? I have not done that yet.
AGENTIf you can reach the valves under the sink without stepping into water or going near the power strip, turn both clockwise until closed. For lever-style valves, turn the lever a quarter turn so it’s perpendicular to the pipe. Don’t force a stuck valve. If that isn’t safe or doesn’t stop the leak, use the main water shutoff, often near where the water line enters the home—in a basement, garage, utility area, or outside meter box. Turn a round handle clockwise, or a lever perpendicular to the pipe. Don’t enter the wet area to reach a valve. If you can reach your electrical panel by a completely dry route, switch off the kitchen circuit; otherwise stay away. Has anyone been shocked, or is there any sparking or smoke? Can you safely reach a shutoff?
CUSTOMERNo one has been shot and there is no sparking or smoke. I am able to reach the shut off. So I am turning the valves. Now the water has stopped. Can you send someone out? I am at 1480 Larkspur Avenue, unit 4D.
AGENTGood—leave those valves closed and keep everyone away from the wet area and power strip. I found your Copperline Care account. The file lists unit 4B, but I’ll use 4D, as you told me. The earliest emergency arrival window is today, 2–4 PM, with a $99 member emergency callout fee. Do you agree to that fee and window? What’s your best callback number, and is there a gate code or any access instruction?
CUSTOMERYes that's right. I moved to unit 4D last month. Is there any way someone can come before 2 p.m.? My best callback number is (503) 555-0139. No, 0193. The gate code is pound 2719.
AGENTThe earliest emergency window available is today, 2–4 PM; I don’t have an earlier slot to offer. I have 1480 Larkspur Avenue, unit 4D, callback (503) 555-0193, and gate code #2719. May I book that window with the $99 member emergency callout fee?
CUSTOMERYes, that's correct. Please book the 2 to 4 p.m. window with the $99 emergency call out fee. Who will be coming and how will I know they are on the way? Also, can you give me the ticket number for this visit?
CUSTOMERHello.
AGENTI’m here—your visit is booked for today, 2–4 PM, with technician Dana. Dana will text (503) 555-0193 about 30 minutes before arrival. - Address: 1480 Larkspur Avenue, unit 4D
- Gate code#2719
- Emergency callout fee$99
- Ticket numberCPL-58210
Leave the sink valves closed and keep everyone away from the wet area and power strip until it’s safe.
CUSTOMERThat's right. Thank you. Alex. Goodbye.
AGENTYou’re welcome.
AGENTStay safe, and goodbye.
Insurance
AGENTNorthgate Mutual claims, this is Alex. Are you somewhere safe right now?
CUSTOMERYes, I am safe. Thank you. I am standing next to my car in a busy cafe parking lot.
AGENTIs anyone injured? If anyone is hurt or in danger, please call 911 before we continue. Otherwise, stay clear of moving traffic. What is your policy number and the policyholder’s last name?
CUSTOMERNobody is injured. Everything is fine there. My policy number is NG4471903. No, sorry, last one is two. The policy holders last name is meta.
AGENTThank you. Your corrected policy number is NG4471902, and it’s verified for a 2021 Honda CR-V. When and where did the accident happen, and what happened? Please also tell me:
- The other driver’s name, insurer, and license plate, if available. - Whether police attended and any report number.
- Whether your car can be driven safely.
CUSTOMERYes that's right. NG4471902. For the Honda CRV. The accident happened about 20 minutes ago at SW fifth Avenue and Alder Street. I was stopped at a red light and another car hit the back of my car. The other driver is Kevin Lund, insured with Pacific Shore. His license plate is 7KX214X. Like X-ray. Police did not attend, so there is no report number. The back bumper is crushed and the rear wheel rubs, so I cannot drive the car safely.
AGENTI have the other driver’s plate as 7KX214X, ending in X as in “X-ray.” Please don’t drive the car with the rear wheel rubbing. I’ll open the claim now.
For the tow, what is the cafe’s name and exact address, including the city, and what phone number can the tow driver call?
CUSTOMERSorry, the plate is 7KXR214X like X-ray, r like Romeo. I am at the cafe but I don't remember the exact address right now, only that it is at SW fifth Avenue and Alder Street. The city is Portland. The tow driver can call me at my number, which is 19073087059. Can you arrange the tow with just the intersection?
AGENTYes—Eastside Towing has been dispatched to the cafe parking lot at SW Fifth Avenue and Alder Street in Portland. Their estimated arrival is 45 minutes, and they have your callback number, 1-907-308-7059, to help locate you. The destination is the Northgate partner repair shop at 9th and Morrison. Your claim number is NGM-904417, assigned to Priya Shah, with contact expected within one business day. The corrected plate is 7KXR214X—X as in X-ray, R as in Romeo. The claim was opened with the earlier plate; I don’t have a tool to amend it here, so please give Priya the corrected plate. Please stay clear of traffic and don’t drive the car.
CUSTOMEROkay, understood. So can you tell me how much I have to pay for this claim? And will I be getting a rental car while minor's repaired? Also, is my premium going to go up because of this accident?
AGENTFor policy NG4471902, your coverage shows:
- Collision deductible$500. That is your deductible, not necessarily your total out-of-pocket cost. Your adjuster can confirm how it applies to this claim. - Rental reimbursement: up to $40 per day for up to 30 days, starting the day the claim is opened. A rental has not yet been arranged. - Towing: covered up to 25 miles. I can’t tell from the coverage information whether your premium will increase. Your agent or policy service team can review that with you; I don’t want to promise an outcome.
CUSTOMERBut he hit me, so I should not have to pay that, right? Will the adjuster contact me about the deductible and rental arrangement? And do I just wait for Priyesh Shah to reach out, or should I call someone else?
AGENTI understand—you were stopped and were hit from behind. But I can’t promise that you won’t have to pay the $500 collision deductible. Priya can explain whether it applies and whether it may be recovered from the other driver’s insurer. Your adjuster’s name is Priya Shah, and contact is expected within one business day. When she contacts you, ask about the deductible and how to arrange a rental under your reimbursement coverage.
CUSTOMERThat's clear. I will wait for Priyesh Shah to contact me and discuss the deductible and rental arrangements, and I will give her the corrected license plate as well. Thank you for your help. Goodbye.