Left gets fewer words wrong. Lower has the final text ready sooner.
Google Chirp 3 is ahead of GPT-4o Mini Transcribe on the Pipecat Dataset 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.
Both providers, every model: Google vs OpenAI
Google Chirp 3 is more accurate on the public clips. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 3 scores 2.00% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 3.35%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 1.35 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 3 scores 4.19% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 4.45%, with likely ranges of 2.97 to 5.27% and 3.22 to 5.55%. 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 3 scores 2.00% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 3.35%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 1.35 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 3 scores 4.19% and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 4.45%, with likely ranges of 2.97 to 5.27% and 3.22 to 5.55%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.
Yes. Google Chirp 3 finishes the transcript 155ms sooner. Google Chirp 3 has the final transcript 475ms after the speaker stops and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe 630ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.
Google Chirp 3 finishes the transcript 155ms 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.
Only Google Chirp 3. GPT-4o Mini Transcribe returns no text until the speaker stops, which matters if your agent reacts to partial transcripts.