Google Chirp 2vsZoom Scribe

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
  • Scribe1.97% · 118ms

Zoom Scribe 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. Google Chirp 2 has a newer release: Google Chirp 3 vs Zoom Scribe.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Chirp 2Scribe
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.59%1.97%
  • Ocular Dataset WER3.80%4.88%
  • Time to first text4.50s1.67s
  • Final-text delay568ms118ms

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

Chirp 2 vs Scribe FAQ

  • Zoom Scribe is more accurate on the public clips. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 2 scores 2.59% and Zoom Scribe 1.97%, so Zoom Scribe makes fewer errors by 0.62 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 2 scores 3.80% and Zoom Scribe 4.88%, with likely ranges of 2.93 to 4.60% and 4.41 to 5.29%. 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. Zoom Scribe finishes the transcript 450ms sooner. Google Chirp 2 has the final transcript 568ms after the speaker stops and Zoom Scribe 118ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Zoom Scribe finishes the transcript 450ms 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 Zoom Scribe after 1.67s, at the median, so Zoom Scribe is 2.83s sooner.