VCB Bench: An Evaluation Benchmark for Audio-Grounded Large Language Model Conversational Agents

Voice agents are increasingly deployed across enterprise applications. However, no existing benchmark jointly addresses realistic conversation simulation and comprehensive voice-specific evaluation. We present EVA-Bench, an end-to-end evaluation framework that addresses both. On the simulation side, EVA-Bench orchestrates dynamic bot-to-bot audio conversations with automatic simulation validation that detects user simulator error and appropriately regenerates conversations before scoring. On the measurement side, EVA-Bench introduces two composite metrics: EVA-A (Accuracy) and EVA-X (Experience). EVA-Bench includes 213 scenarios across three enterprise domains, a controlled perturbation suite for accent and noise robustness, and multi-trial measurements that distinguish peak from reliable capability. Across 12 systems spanning all three architectures, we find: (1) no system simultaneously exceeds 0.5 on both EVA-A pass@1 and EVA-X pass@1; (2) peak and reliable performance diverge substantially (median pass@k--pass^k gap of 0.44 on EVA-A); and (3) accent and noise perturbations expose substantial robustness gaps, with effects varying across architectures, systems, and metrics (mean $\Delta$ up to 0.314). We release EVA-Bench under an open-source license.

Current voice AI benchmarks typically evaluate isolated capabilities such as speech intelligibility, word error rate, or text-based dialogue quality, but they rarely test whether systems harness the acoustic information that distinguishes spoken language from its textual representation. To this end, we introduce the Real World Voice EQ Bench, a multidimensional benchmark for evaluating voice AI across text-to-speech (TTS), speech-to-speech (STS), speech understanding (SU), and automatic speech recognition (ASR). Our evaluations indicate that performance is highly dimension-specific. For TTS, naturalness, expressiveness, identity stability, and reliability are largely independent evaluation dimensions. For STS, access to audio does not guarantee use of vocal affect, and some agents remain largely transcript-driven. For SU, models perform unevenly across paralinguistic tasks. For ASR, real world accent, emotion, noise, and conversational conditions expose failures that are not captured by established clean-speech benchmarks. Together, these results show that voice AI should be evaluated as a profile of acoustic, expressive, interactional, and robustness capabilities rather than by a single aggregate score.

Generally, most voice agents are cascaded systems, i.e., an ASR model transcribes the caller's audio, a language model reads the transcript and decides what to say and which backend tools to call, and a TTS model speaks the reply. Nearly all of the decision making happens in the language model, but existing evaluations measure it either too broadly or too narrowly. End-to-end voice benchmarks score the full pipeline, so recognition errors and model errors mix into a single number. LLM benchmarks isolate the model but they do not evaluate what makes real phone calls hard, such as transcription issues, caller's voice being split across messages and the requirement that replies follow the language and script specified. We introduce the Multi-Turn Voice Agent Benchmark (MTVA-Bench), which evaluates the language model on the same conditions it faces inside a cascaded system. The caller is played by an LLM following a set of rubrics and tool calls are answered by a mock backend which responds to the arguments the model actually sent. The benchmark contains 49 agents working across 490 reviewed scenarios and supports 7 languages. Scoring is a combination of deterministic checks on tool calls with two LLM judges, one that scores scenario specific rules and one that grades conversation quality without access to the task. Both judges must cite specific messages from the transcript. Task and conversation scores are weighted equally, since a call can complete its task and still go badly for the caller. In a seven-model study, six of the models select the correct tool within 6.4 points of one another, but their overall scores span 24.4 points. Most of the gap comes from argument values, action ordering, rule compliance, and what the model says around its tool calls.