Deepgram Flux Multilingual vs GPT-4o Mini Transcribe

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)
  • Flux Multilingual4.96% · 114ms
  • 4o Mini Transcribe3.35% · 630ms

GPT-4o Mini Transcribe is ahead on both datasets together and the Pipecat Dataset, and Deepgram Flux Multilingual on final-text delay. The Ocular Dataset is too close to call.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Flux Multilingual4o Mini Transcribe
  • Overall WER4.81%3.73%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER4.96%3.35%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.53%4.45%
  • Time to first text793msn/a
  • Final-text delay114ms630ms

Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap. For costs, see our breakdown of Deepgram pricing.

Flux Multilingual vs 4o Mini Transcribe FAQ

  • GPT-4o Mini Transcribe is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Deepgram Flux Multilingual scores 4.81% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 3.73%, so GPT-4o Mini Transcribe makes fewer errors by 1.08 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Deepgram Flux Multilingual scores 4.96% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 3.35%, so GPT-4o Mini Transcribe makes fewer errors by 1.61 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • Final-text delay was not measured for one or both, so speed cannot be compared. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • GPT-4o Mini Transcribe makes fewer errors on real conversations, and the two are not separated on speed. A voice agent cannot reply until the final transcript arrives, and the Ocular recordings are real conversations.

  • Only Deepgram Flux Multilingual. GPT-4o Mini Transcribe returns no text until the speaker stops, which matters if your agent reacts to partial transcripts.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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