All comparisons
AssemblyAIDeepgram

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro vs Deepgram Flux Multilingual

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro is ahead on the Pipecat Dataset, the Ocular Dataset and time to first text, and Deepgram Flux Multilingual on final-text delay.

Compare

Quality and speed frontier

Every model's error rate on the public clips, against how long its transcript takes to settle.

Most attractive quadrantPareto line
Final-text delay P50 (ms)
◣ better
Pipecat Dataset WER (%)
The line is the frontier: no model beats these on one measure without giving up the other.
Head to head

The four metrics, side by side

Pipecat Dataset WER

Word error rate on 1,000 clips from Pipecat's STT benchmark dataset.

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro
1.93%1st
Deepgram Flux Multilingual
4.96%14th

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro, 3.03 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro
4.23%9th
Deepgram Flux Multilingual
4.53%13th

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro, 0.30 points lower

Time to first text

Median delay before the first words arrive, from the first audio packet.

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro
489ms1st
Deepgram Flux Multilingual
793ms3rd

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro, 304ms sooner

Final-text delay

Median delay after the speaker stops before the transcript is final.

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro
180ms7th
Deepgram Flux Multilingual
114ms4th

Deepgram Flux Multilingual, 66ms sooner

Lower is better on every metric. The small figure is each model's place in the whole field.

Latency

First text and final text, at three percentiles

Both measured on the same 206 streamed Ocular Dataset turns. P90 and P95 say what a caller meets on a bad turn, which a median hides.

MeasureModelP50P90P95
Time to first textAssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro489ms966ms1.08s
Deepgram Flux Multilingual793ms2.00s3.41s
Final-text delayAssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro180ms532ms692ms
Deepgram Flux Multilingual114ms135ms141ms
Ranking

Both against every other model

Open on the metric where the two sit furthest apart, with the other three a tab away.

Word error rate on 1,000 clips from Pipecat's STT benchmark dataset. Lower is better.

#ModelPipecat Datasetclips
1AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro1.93%1,000
2Google Chirp 32.00%1,000
3Reson82.10%1,000
4GPT Realtime Whisper2.16%1,000
5Cartesia Ink 22.39%1,000
6Speechmatics Linden2.46%998
7Google Chirp 22.59%1,000
8Inworld STT-12.72%1,000
9GPT-4o Mini Transcribe3.35%1,000
10Deepgram Nova-33.46%1,000
11Smallest Pulse3.66%1,000
12GPT-4o Transcribe3.90%1,000
13Deepgram Flux English3.90%999
14Deepgram Flux Multilingual4.96%999
15Gradium6.48%1,000

Counts are the clips each model returned usable text for, so they differ between models and between datasets.

Against the field

Both on the other two views

Pipecat vs Ocular accuracy

Every model's error rate on the public clips, against the same model on real conversations.

Most attractive quadrant
Ocular Dataset WER (%)
◣ better
Pipecat Dataset WER (%)

Transcription response time

How soon each model returns its first words, against how soon its transcript is final.

Most attractive quadrant
Final-text delay P50 (ms)
◣ better
Time to first text P50 (ms)
Coverage

What the numbers rest on

ModelPipecat clipsOcular recordingsTurns timedFailed
AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro1,00082051
Deepgram Flux Multilingual999817531

A clip counts only where the model returned usable text, so counts differ between models. Word error rate is measured the same way throughout: incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript.

Questions

Frequently asked questions

Is AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro or Deepgram Flux Multilingual more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro scores 1.93% and Deepgram Flux Multilingual 4.96%, so AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro makes fewer errors by 3.03 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro scores 4.23% and Deepgram Flux Multilingual 4.53%, so AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro makes fewer errors by 0.30 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript, so lower is better.

Which is faster, AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro or Deepgram Flux Multilingual?

AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro returns first text 304ms sooner, at 489ms against 793ms at the median. Deepgram Flux Multilingual has the final transcript 66ms sooner, 114ms after the speaker stops against 180ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro and Deepgram Flux Multilingual compared?

Both ran the same two datasets under the same conditions as every other model in the benchmark: 1,000 public clips from Pipecat's STT benchmark dataset and eight licensed conversation recordings from Ocular. AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro returned usable text for 1,000 of the public clips and Deepgram Flux Multilingual for 999. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.