All comparisons
AssemblyAIGoogle

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro vs Google Chirp 3

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro is ahead on the Pipecat Dataset, time to first text and final-text delay, and Google Chirp 3 on the Ocular Dataset.

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 3.6 Pro
1.77%1st
Google Chirp 3
2.00%3rd

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro, 0.23 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro
4.50%14th
Google Chirp 3
4.19%9th

Google Chirp 3, 0.31 points lower

Time to first text

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

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro
485ms1st
Google Chirp 3
4.48s14th

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro, 4.00s sooner

Final-text delay

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

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro
91ms3rd
Google Chirp 3
475ms13th

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro, 384ms 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 3.6 Pro485ms966ms967ms
Google Chirp 34.48s6.21s7.97s
Final-text delayAssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro91ms210ms232ms
Google Chirp 3475ms*941ms*1.41s*

* Final-text delay is the observed time after stream close, because controlled finalization is not available for this model. Compare it with care against models that finalize on request.

Ranking

Both against every other model

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

Time to first text, measured from the first audio packet. Lower is better.

#ModelFirst textturns
1AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro485ms206
2AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro489ms205
3Deepgram Flux English791ms199
4Deepgram Flux Multilingual793ms175
5Smallest Pulse1057ms206
6Inworld STT-11063ms206
7Deepgram Nova-31064ms203
8Speechmatics Linden1190ms194
9Soniox STT-RT v51195ms200
10GPT Realtime Whisper1379ms206
11Cartesia Ink 21511ms198
12Gradium1705ms198
13Reson82400ms201
14Google Chirp 34480ms206
15Google Chirp 24497ms205

Not ranked: GPT-4o Mini Transcribe and GPT-4o Transcribe return no text until the speaker stops, so first-text time is not comparable.

Median across the same 206 Ocular Dataset turns. Providers finalize differently, so compare models with similar finalization contracts before treating small gaps as meaningful.

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 3.6 Pro1,00082060
Google Chirp 31,00082060

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 3.6 Pro or Google Chirp 3 more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro scores 1.77% and Google Chirp 3 2.00%, so AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro makes fewer errors by 0.23 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro scores 4.50% and Google Chirp 3 4.19%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 0.31 points. The two datasets disagree, so the better choice depends on whether your audio looks more like clean public clips or real conversations.

Which is faster, AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro or Google Chirp 3?

AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro returns first text 4.00s sooner, at 485ms against 4.48s at the median. AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro has the final transcript 384ms sooner, 91ms after the speaker stops against 475ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were AssemblyAI Universal 3.6 Pro and Google Chirp 3 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 3.6 Pro returned usable text for 1,000 of the public clips and Google Chirp 3 for 1,000. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.