All comparisons
DeepgramSoniox

Deepgram Nova-3 vs Soniox STT-RT v5

Soniox STT-RT v5 is ahead on the Pipecat Dataset, the Ocular Dataset and final-text delay, and Deepgram Nova-3 on time to first text.

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 Nova-3
3.46%12th
Soniox STT-RT v5
2.54%8th

Soniox STT-RT v5, 0.92 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

Deepgram Nova-3
4.39%11th
Soniox STT-RT v5
3.92%6th

Soniox STT-RT v5, 0.47 points lower

Time to first text

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

Deepgram Nova-3
1.06s7th
Soniox STT-RT v5
1.20s9th

Deepgram Nova-3, 131ms sooner

Final-text delay

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

Deepgram Nova-3
103ms4th
Soniox STT-RT v5
38ms1st

Soniox STT-RT v5, 65ms 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 Nova-31.06s1.10s2.07s
Soniox STT-RT v51.20s1.67s1.71s
Final-text delayDeepgram Nova-3103ms143ms155ms
Soniox STT-RT v538ms72ms79ms
Ranking

Both against every other model

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

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular. Lower is better.

Counts are the clips each model returned usable text for, so they differ between models and between datasets.

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 Nova-31,00082020
Soniox STT-RT v51,00082006

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 Nova-3 or Soniox STT-RT v5 more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 3.46% and Soniox STT-RT v5 2.54%, so Soniox STT-RT v5 makes fewer errors by 0.92 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Deepgram Nova-3 scores 4.39% and Soniox STT-RT v5 3.92%, so Soniox STT-RT v5 makes fewer errors by 0.47 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript, so lower is better.

Which is faster, Deepgram Nova-3 or Soniox STT-RT v5?

Deepgram Nova-3 returns first text 131ms sooner, at 1.06s against 1.20s at the median. Soniox STT-RT v5 has the final transcript 65ms sooner, 38ms after the speaker stops against 103ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were Deepgram Nova-3 and Soniox STT-RT v5 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 Nova-3 returned usable text for 1,000 of the public clips and Soniox STT-RT v5 for 1,000. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.