GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) is ahead on reliability, success rate, agent responses and data accuracy, and Gemini 3.8 Live on stalled calls, interruption and response time.
Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam
Pick Gemini 3.8 Live for fewer stalled calls (10.2 points lower), handling interruptions (0.09 higher) and fast replies (0.11s sooner). Pick GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) for reliability across repeated calls (34.1 points higher), calls that pass every check (14.6 points higher), getting the agent's replies right (5.7 points higher) and saving the caller's data correctly (18.6 points higher).
Scenarios that passed on all three runs.
GPT-Live 1 + Sol low, 34.1 points higher
Calls that passed every check.
GPT-Live 1 + Sol low, 14.6 points higher
Calls where the agent's replies reached the expected outcome.
GPT-Live 1 + Sol low, 5.7 points higher
Calls where everything the agent saved matched exactly.
GPT-Live 1 + Sol low, 18.6 points higher
Calls where the agent went silent for 10 seconds or more.
Gemini 3.8 Live, 10.2 points lower
How well it handled being talked over, 0 to 5.
Gemini 3.8 Live, 0.09 higher
Median time to start replying after the caller finishes.
Gemini 3.8 Live, 0.11s sooner
One minute of call at the vendor's published rates.
Not comparable
The small figure is the place among ranked models. The cascade is not ranked.
Gemini 3.8 Live 1.91s, GPT-Live 1 + Sol low 2.02s at the median.
Both providers, every model: Google vs OpenAI
GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) is more reliable, by 34.1 points. Gemini 3.8 Live passed 34 of 82 scenarios on all three runs, and GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) passed 62. A scenario only counts when every run of it passed.
For a phone agent, GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking), since it gets more scenarios right on every run. GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) is ahead on reliability, success rate, agent responses and data accuracy, and Gemini 3.8 Live on stalled calls, interruption and response time.
GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking), by 18.6 points. Gemini 3.8 Live saved everything exactly right on 70.5% of the calls that save data, and GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) on 89.0%. On Appointments, 78.4% against 100.0%. On Medicare, 50.0% against 60.6%. A call counts only when nothing is missing, wrong, extra or saved twice.
Yes. Gemini 3.8 Live starts replying 0.11s sooner at the median. Gemini 3.8 Live takes 1.91s at the median and 2.23s at p90; GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) takes 2.02s and 2.42s. Both are measured on the call audio, from the caller finishing to the agent starting to reply.
Gemini 3.8 Live, by 0.09 on a 0 to 5 scale. Gemini 3.8 Live scores 4.98 and GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) 4.89 for how well the agent handled being talked over.
Gemini 3.8 Live, by 10.2 points. The agent went silent for 10 seconds or more on 2.0% of Gemini 3.8 Live calls and 12.2% of GPT-Live 1 + GPT-6 Sol (low thinking) calls.
There is no verified per-minute rate for Gemini 3.8 Live, so cost cannot be compared yet.
Cekura ran both as the whole agent in the same open-source Pipecat pipeline, with the same prompt, tools and connection. A simulated caller worked through all 82 scenarios on live calls, three times each, 2,952 calls across the benchmark. A call passes only when the agent said the right things and saved the right data.
