Left gets fewer words wrong. Lower has the final text ready sooner.
Google Chirp 3 is ahead of Google Chirp 2 on the Pipecat Dataset, time to first text and final-text delay. The Ocular Dataset is too close to call.
Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam
Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap.
Google Chirp 3 is more accurate on the public clips. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 2 scores 2.59% and Google Chirp 3 2.00%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 0.59 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 2 scores 3.80% and Google Chirp 3 4.19%, with likely ranges of 2.93 to 4.60% and 2.97 to 5.27%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
Google Chirp 3 is more accurate on the public clips. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 2 scores 2.59% and Google Chirp 3 2.00%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 0.59 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 2 scores 3.80% and Google Chirp 3 4.19%, with likely ranges of 2.93 to 4.60% and 2.97 to 5.27%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
No. Google Chirp 3 finishes the transcript 93ms sooner. Google Chirp 2 has the final transcript 568ms after the speaker stops and Google Chirp 3 475ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.
Google Chirp 3 finishes the transcript 93ms sooner, and the two are too close to call on real conversations. 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. Google Chirp 2 shows first text after 4.50s and Google Chirp 3 after 4.48s, at the median, so Google Chirp 3 is 17ms sooner.