Cartesia Ink 2vsGoogle Chirp 2
Accuracy and speed
Left gets fewer words wrong. Lower has the final text ready sooner.
- Ink 22.39% · 123ms
- Chirp 22.59% · 568ms
Cartesia Ink 2 is ahead of Google Chirp 2 on time to first text and final-text delay. The Pipecat Dataset and The Ocular Dataset are too close to call. Google Chirp 2 has a newer release: Cartesia Ink 2 vs Google Chirp 3.
Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam
Who is better at what
- Pipecat Dataset WER2.39%2.59%
- Ocular Dataset WER3.09%3.80%
- Time to first text1.51s4.50s
- Final-text delay123ms568ms
Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap.
Ink 2 vs Chirp 2 FAQ
Which is more accurate, Cartesia Ink 2 or Google Chirp 2?
Cartesia Ink 2 and Google Chirp 2 are too close to call on accuracy. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.39% and Google Chirp 2 2.59%, with likely ranges of 2.13 to 2.65% and 2.31 to 2.89%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 3.09% and Google Chirp 2 3.80%, with likely ranges of 2.43 to 3.84% and 2.93 to 4.60%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
Cartesia Ink 2 and Google Chirp 2 are too close to call on accuracy. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.39% and Google Chirp 2 2.59%, with likely ranges of 2.13 to 2.65% and 2.31 to 2.89%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 3.09% and Google Chirp 2 3.80%, with likely ranges of 2.43 to 3.84% and 2.93 to 4.60%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
Yes. Cartesia Ink 2 finishes the transcript 445ms sooner. Cartesia Ink 2 has the final transcript 123ms after the speaker stops and Google Chirp 2 568ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.
Cartesia Ink 2 finishes the transcript 445ms sooner, and the two are too close to call on real conversations. A voice agent cannot reply until the final transcript arrives, and the Ocular recordings are real conversations.
Yes, both return partial text before the speaker stops. Cartesia Ink 2 shows first text after 1.51s and Google Chirp 2 after 4.50s, at the median, so Cartesia Ink 2 is 2.99s sooner.