Google Chirp 2 vs GPT-4o Mini Transcribe

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)
  • Chirp 22.59% · 568ms
  • 4o Mini Transcribe3.35% · 630ms

Google Chirp 2 is ahead of GPT-4o Mini Transcribe on both datasets together, the Pipecat Dataset and final-text delay. The Ocular Dataset is too close to call. Google Chirp 2 has a newer release: Google Chirp 3 vs GPT-4o Mini Transcribe.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Chirp 24o Mini Transcribe
  • Overall WER3.01%3.73%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.59%3.35%
  • Ocular Dataset WER3.80%4.45%
  • Time to first text4.50sn/a
  • Final-text delay568ms630ms

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

Chirp 2 vs 4o Mini Transcribe FAQ

  • Google Chirp 2 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 2 scores 3.01% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 3.73%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.73 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 2 scores 2.59% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 3.35%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.76 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • Final-text delay was not measured for one or both, so speed cannot be compared. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors on real conversations, and the two are not separated on speed. A voice agent cannot reply until the final transcript arrives, and the Ocular recordings are real conversations.

  • Only Google Chirp 2. GPT-4o Mini Transcribe returns no text until the speaker stops, which matters if your agent reacts to partial transcripts.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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