Deepgram Nova-3 vs Google Chirp 2

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)
  • Nova-33.46% · 103ms
  • Chirp 22.59% · 568ms

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

Who is better at what

Nova-3Chirp 2
  • Overall WER3.78%3.01%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER3.46%2.59%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.39%3.80%
  • Time to first text1.06s4.50s
  • Final-text delay103ms568ms

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

Nova-3 vs Chirp 2 FAQ

  • 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.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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