Google Chirp 2 vs Reson8

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
  • Reson82.10% · 235ms

Reson8 is ahead of Google Chirp 2 on both datasets together, time to first text and final-text delay. The Pipecat Dataset and The Ocular Dataset are too close to call. Google Chirp 2 has a newer release: Google Chirp 3 vs Reson8.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Chirp 2Reson8
  • Overall WER3.01%2.38%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.59%2.10%
  • Ocular Dataset WER3.80%2.93%
  • Time to first text4.50s2.40s
  • Final-text delay568ms235ms

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

Chirp 2 vs Reson8 FAQ

  • Reson8 is more accurate on the public clips. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 2 scores 3.01% and Reson8 2.38%, so Reson8 makes fewer errors by 0.62 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 2 scores 2.59% and Reson8 2.10%, with likely ranges of 2.31 to 2.89% and 1.86 to 2.35%. 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. Reson8 finishes the transcript 2.10s sooner. Google Chirp 2 has the final transcript 4.50s after the speaker stops and Reson8 2.40s, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Reson8 finishes the transcript 2.10s 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 3.80% and Reson8 after 2.93%, at the median.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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