Almost Human, Except When It Matters: VoxParity and the Decisions a Voice Should Change

Speech conveys information through both words and vocal delivery. We evaluate four leading production realtime voice systems-OpenAI's GPT Realtime 2, Google's Gemini 3.1 Flash Live, and Alibaba's Qwen3.5 Omni Plus and Omni Flash-on tasks where the words and the delivery patterns both convey meaningful information. Across three consequential scenarios, all four systems act on the words rather than the voice. They end calls with crying callers who insist nothing is wrong, approve wire transfers authorized in frightened voices, and enroll callers whose agreement is clearly sarcastic. Surprisingly, this is often not a failure of perception. When asked directly, three of the four systems reliably identify the distress, fear, or sarcasm they later ignore when making decisions. We observe a similar pattern when these realtime voice systems estimate accent and age, as their responses frequently follow the biases of the words rather than the acoustic properties of the speaker. We term this disconnect between perception and action the emotional intelligence gap of voice AI. Prompting systems to explicitly attend to vocal delivery improves performance only partially and inconsistently. Our findings show that current realtime voice AI systems often behave as if speech had been reduced to a transcript, suggesting that they should be used with caution in settings where the tone and emotion of delivery convey important information.

Voice agents in production must handle several requests, background speech, and customers who lose patience. We introduce VAmoS Energy, a benchmark that combines these challenges in 100 calls about utility billing and payment assistance. Each caller makes two to four requests. The agent has sixteen tools backed by a stateful Stripe billing twin and the Apache Fineract loan engine, with account access blocked until caller verification succeeds. The tasks use public household electricity data and a policy based on Pennsylvania's residential billing rules. An LLM-as-a-verifier checks the agent's actions and spoken figures against explicit requirements. On a calibration run, it agrees with a code verifier on 99.1% of checks. Across fourteen voice stacks and three repeats per task, completion ranges from 17.3% to 44.7%. Grok Voice leads, and Gemini 3.8 Live and GPT-Live follow at about the same cost per call. Background television reduces pooled completion from 38.7% to 8.6%. The simulated caller often accepts an incorrect result because it hears the agent's words but cannot inspect its actions. These findings show why voice agents need evaluation across the whole call, including what they say, what they change, and how they handle competing speech.

Production voice agents span cascaded, speech-to-speech, and hybrid architectures. Voice-agent benchmarks typically measure component quality and conversational properties such as word error rate, latency, naturalness, and turn-taking. Fewer measure whether the agent handled a phone call correctly on its own. Contact centers refer to this as ``containment'': the share of phone calls the automated system resolves without handing off to a human. On some phone calls the right outcome is refusal or a redirect. To address this gap, we introduce VAmoS Bench, the Voice Agent Simulation Bench. It measures complete voice-agent systems end to end in a stateful customer-support task. The agent is Riley, a credit-card support representative for a fictional bank who can freeze, cancel, replace, or activate a card. Each of 100 scenarios supplies a simulated caller with a private goal and a seeded PostgreSQL backend. The platform uses each scenario to populate and activate an isolated simulation in which the caller reaches Riley over audio; roughly one-third apply adversarial pressure. The agent can use five tools that execute real SQL against the backend. Each scenario also defines binary assertions. A grader evaluates them against the complete trace of what the caller and agent said and what the agent did, including tool invocations, arguments, and returned rows. This catches an agent that claims to have changed a card without updating the database, as well as one that makes the right database change while disclosing protected information. This first benchmark version focuses on financial services. Its evaluation protocol supports an evolving leaderboard: additional voice agents can be evaluated on the same version, while later versions can expand the tasks and scenarios.