Google Chirp 3 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 32.00% · 475ms
  • Pulse3.66% · 201ms

Google Chirp 3 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.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

Chirp 3Pulse
  • Overall WER2.76%3.59%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.00%3.66%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.19%3.46%
  • Time to first text4.48s1.06s
  • Final-text delay475ms201ms

Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap. For the wider field, see our pick of the best voice AI APIs for real-time audio.

Chirp 3 vs Pulse FAQ

  • Google Chirp 3 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Google Chirp 3 scores 2.76% and Smallest Pulse 3.59%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 0.83 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Google Chirp 3 scores 2.00% and Smallest Pulse 3.66%, so Google Chirp 3 makes fewer errors by 1.65 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • No. Smallest Pulse finishes the transcript 3.42s sooner. Google Chirp 3 has the final transcript 4.48s 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 3 makes fewer errors on real conversations, while Smallest Pulse finishes the transcript 3.42s 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 3 shows first text after 4.19% 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.