Left gets fewer words wrong. Lower has the final text ready sooner.
Deepgram Nova-3 is ahead on time to first text and final-text delay, and Google Chirp 2 on both datasets together and the Pipecat Dataset. The Ocular Dataset is too close to call. Google Chirp 2 has a newer release: Deepgram Nova-3 vs Google Chirp 3.
Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam
Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap.
Google Chirp 2 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.78% and Google Chirp 2 3.01%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.78 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.46% and Google Chirp 2 2.59%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.87 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
Google Chirp 2 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.78% and Google Chirp 2 3.01%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.78 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.46% and Google Chirp 2 2.59%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.87 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
Yes. Deepgram Nova-3 finishes the transcript 3.43s sooner. Deepgram Nova-3 has the final transcript 1.06s after the speaker stops and Google Chirp 2 4.50s, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.
It is a trade-off. Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors on real conversations, while Deepgram Nova-3 finishes the transcript 3.43s 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. Deepgram Nova-3 shows first text after 4.39% and Google Chirp 2 after 3.80%, at the median.
Cekura runs these simulated calls on your agent and scores every one.