Cartesia Ink 2 vs Smallest 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 both datasets together, 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
  • Overall WER2.63%3.59%
  • 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. For its voices, see our notes on Cartesia text to speech.

Ink 2 vs Pulse FAQ

  • Cartesia Ink 2 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.63% and Smallest Pulse 3.59%, so Cartesia Ink 2 makes fewer errors by 0.96 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Cartesia Ink 2 scores 2.39% and Smallest Pulse 3.66%, so Cartesia Ink 2 makes fewer errors by 1.27 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • No. Smallest Pulse finishes the transcript 454ms sooner. Cartesia Ink 2 has the final transcript 1.51s after the speaker stops and Smallest Pulse 1.06s, 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 Smallest Pulse finishes the transcript 454ms 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 3.09% and Smallest Pulse after 3.46%, at the median.

Test your voice agent the same way.

Cekura runs these simulated calls on your agent and scores every one.