Deepgram Nova-3 vs Google Chirp 3

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 32.00% · 475ms

Deepgram Nova-3 is ahead on time to first text and final-text delay, and Google Chirp 3 on both datasets together and the Pipecat Dataset. The Ocular Dataset is too close to call.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Nova-3Chirp 3
  • Overall WER3.78%2.76%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER3.46%2.00%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.39%4.19%
  • Time to first text1.06s4.48s
  • Final-text delay103ms475ms

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

Nova-3 vs Chirp 3 FAQ

  • Google Chirp 3 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.78% and Google Chirp 3 2.76%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 1.03 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.46% and Google Chirp 3 2.00%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 1.46 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • Yes. Deepgram Nova-3 finishes the transcript 3.42s sooner. Deepgram Nova-3 has the final transcript 1.06s after the speaker stops and Google Chirp 3 4.48s, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • It is a trade-off. Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors on real conversations, while Deepgram Nova-3 finishes the transcript 3.42s 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 3 after 4.19%, at the median.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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