Google Chirp 2 vs Smallest Pulse

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
  • Pulse3.66% · 201ms

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

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Chirp 2Pulse
  • Overall WER3.01%3.59%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.59%3.66%
  • Ocular Dataset WER3.80%3.46%
  • Time to first text4.50s1.06s
  • Final-text delay568ms201ms

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

Chirp 2 vs Pulse FAQ

  • Google Chirp 2 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 2 scores 3.01% and Smallest Pulse 3.59%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 0.58 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 2 scores 2.59% and Smallest Pulse 3.66%, so Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors by 1.06 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • No. Smallest Pulse finishes the transcript 3.44s sooner. Google Chirp 2 has the final transcript 4.50s after the speaker stops and Smallest Pulse 1.06s, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • It is a trade-off. Google Chirp 2 makes fewer errors on real conversations, while Smallest Pulse finishes the transcript 3.44s 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. Google Chirp 2 shows first text after 3.80% and Smallest Pulse after 3.46%, at the median.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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