Google Chirp 3vsGPT-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 32.00% · 475ms
  • 4o Mini Transcribe3.35% · 630ms

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

Who is better at what

Chirp 34o Mini Transcribe
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.00%3.35%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.19%4.45%
  • Time to first text4.48sn/a
  • Final-text delay475ms630ms

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

Chirp 3 vs 4o Mini Transcribe FAQ

  • 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.