Cartesia Ink 2vsSmallest Pulse

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
  • Pulse3.66% · 201ms

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

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Ink 2Pulse
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.39%3.66%
  • Ocular Dataset WER3.09%3.46%
  • Time to first text1.51s1.06s
  • Final-text delay123ms201ms

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

Ink 2 vs Pulse FAQ

  • Cartesia Ink 2 is more accurate on the public clips. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.39% and Smallest Pulse 3.66%, so Cartesia Ink 2 makes fewer errors by 1.27 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 3.09% and Smallest Pulse 3.46%, with likely ranges of 2.43 to 3.84% and 2.66 to 4.22%. 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 78ms sooner. Cartesia Ink 2 has the final transcript 123ms after the speaker stops and Smallest Pulse 201ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Cartesia Ink 2 finishes the transcript 78ms 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 Smallest Pulse after 1.06s, at the median, so Smallest Pulse is 454ms sooner.