All comparisons
DeepgramGoogle

Deepgram Flux Multilingual vs Google Chirp 2

Deepgram Flux Multilingual is ahead on time to first text and final-text delay, and Google Chirp 2 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.

Deepgram Flux Multilingual
4.96%14th
Google Chirp 2
2.59%7th

Google Chirp 2, 2.37 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

Deepgram Flux Multilingual
4.53%13th
Google Chirp 2
3.80%5th

Google Chirp 2, 0.73 points lower

Time to first text

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

Deepgram Flux Multilingual
793ms3rd
Google Chirp 2
4.50s13th

Deepgram Flux Multilingual, 3.70s sooner

Final-text delay

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

Deepgram Flux Multilingual
114ms4th
Google Chirp 2
568ms13th

Deepgram Flux Multilingual, 454ms 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 textDeepgram Flux Multilingual793ms2.00s3.41s
Google Chirp 24.50s6.40s8.15s
Final-text delayDeepgram Flux Multilingual114ms135ms141ms
Google Chirp 2568ms*1.04s*1.22s*

* Final-text delay is the observed time after stream close, because controlled finalization is not available for this model. Compare it with care against models that finalize on request.

Ranking

Both against every other model

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

Time to first text, measured from the first audio packet. Lower is better.

#ModelFirst textturns
1AssemblyAI Universal 3.5 Pro489ms205
2Deepgram Flux English791ms199
3Deepgram Flux Multilingual793ms175
4Smallest Pulse1057ms206
5Inworld STT-11063ms206
6Deepgram Nova-31064ms203
7Speechmatics Linden1190ms194
8GPT Realtime Whisper1379ms206
9Cartesia Ink 21511ms198
10Gradium1705ms198
11Reson82400ms201
12Google Chirp 34480ms206
13Google Chirp 24497ms205

Not ranked: GPT-4o Mini Transcribe and GPT-4o Transcribe return no text until the speaker stops, so first-text time is not comparable.

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
Deepgram Flux Multilingual999817531
Google Chirp 21,00082051

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 Deepgram Flux Multilingual or Google Chirp 2 more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Deepgram Flux Multilingual scores 4.96% and Google Chirp 2 2.59%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 2.37 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Deepgram Flux Multilingual scores 4.53% and Google Chirp 2 3.80%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.73 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript, so lower is better.

Which is faster, Deepgram Flux Multilingual or Google Chirp 2?

Deepgram Flux Multilingual returns first text 3.70s sooner, at 793ms against 4.50s at the median. Deepgram Flux Multilingual has the final transcript 454ms sooner, 114ms after the speaker stops against 568ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were Deepgram Flux Multilingual and Google Chirp 2 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. Deepgram Flux Multilingual returned usable text for 999 of the public clips and Google Chirp 2 for 1,000. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.