All comparisons
CartesiaReson8

Cartesia Ink 2 vs Reson8

Cartesia Ink 2 is ahead on time to first text and final-text delay, and Reson8 on the Pipecat Dataset and 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.

Cartesia Ink 2
2.39%5th
Reson8
2.10%3rd

Reson8, 0.29 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

Cartesia Ink 2
3.09%2nd
Reson8
2.93%1st

Reson8, 0.16 points lower

Time to first text

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

Cartesia Ink 2
1.51s9th
Reson8
2.40s11th

Cartesia Ink 2, 889ms sooner

Final-text delay

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

Cartesia Ink 2
123ms5th
Reson8
235ms10th

Cartesia Ink 2, 112ms 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 textCartesia Ink 21.51s2.04s3.23s
Reson82.40s7.97s10.20s
Final-text delayCartesia Ink 2123ms139ms145ms
Reson8235ms357ms398ms
Ranking

Both against every other model

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

Final-text delay after the speaker stops. Lower is better.

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
Cartesia Ink 21,00081980
Reson81,00082010

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 Cartesia Ink 2 or Reson8 more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.39% and Reson8 2.10%, so Reson8 makes fewer errors by 0.29 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 3.09% and Reson8 2.93%, so Reson8 makes fewer errors by 0.16 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript, so lower is better.

Which is faster, Cartesia Ink 2 or Reson8?

Cartesia Ink 2 returns first text 889ms sooner, at 1.51s against 2.40s at the median. Cartesia Ink 2 has the final transcript 112ms sooner, 123ms after the speaker stops against 235ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were Cartesia Ink 2 and Reson8 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. Cartesia Ink 2 returned usable text for 1,000 of the public clips and Reson8 for 1,000. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.