Cartesia Ink 2vsInworld STT-1

Compare

Accuracy and speed

Left gets fewer words wrong. Lower has the final text ready sooner.

Accurate and fast0ms200ms400ms600ms800ms0%2%4%6%8%Words wrong on clean audio (Pipecat WER)
  • Ink 22.39% · 123ms
  • STT-12.72% · 41ms

Inworld STT-1 is ahead on time to first text and final-text delay, and Cartesia Ink 2 on the Ocular Dataset. The Pipecat Dataset is too close to call.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Ink 2STT-1
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.39%2.72%
  • Ocular Dataset WER3.09%10.60%
  • Time to first text1.51s1.06s
  • Final-text delay123ms41ms

Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap.

Ink 2 vs STT-1 FAQ

  • Cartesia Ink 2 is more accurate on real conversations. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.39% and Inworld STT-1 2.72%, with likely ranges of 2.13 to 2.65% and 1.67 to 4.68%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 3.09% and Inworld STT-1 10.60%, so Cartesia Ink 2 makes fewer errors by 7.52 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • No. Inworld STT-1 finishes the transcript 82ms sooner. Cartesia Ink 2 has the final transcript 123ms after the speaker stops and Inworld STT-1 41ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • It is a trade-off. Cartesia Ink 2 makes fewer errors on real conversations, while Inworld STT-1 finishes the transcript 82ms sooner. 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 Inworld STT-1 after 1.06s, at the median, so Inworld STT-1 is 448ms sooner.