Left gets fewer words wrong. Lower has the final text ready sooner.
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
Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap.
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.
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.