Gradium vs Inworld STT-1

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)
  • Gradium6.48% · 212ms
  • STT-12.72% · 41ms

Inworld STT-1 is ahead of Gradium on both datasets together, the Pipecat Dataset, 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

GradiumSTT-1
  • Overall WER5.78%5.44%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER6.48%2.72%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.45%10.60%
  • Time to first text1.71s1.06s
  • Final-text delay212ms41ms

Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap. Our guide explains how word error rate is measured.

Gradium vs STT-1 FAQ

  • Inworld STT-1 is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Gradium scores 5.78% and Inworld STT-1 5.44%, so Inworld STT-1 makes fewer errors by 0.34 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Gradium scores 6.48% and Inworld STT-1 2.72%, so Inworld STT-1 makes fewer errors by 3.76 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • No. Inworld STT-1 finishes the transcript 642ms sooner. Gradium has the final transcript 1.71s after the speaker stops and Inworld STT-1 1.06s, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Inworld STT-1 is the stronger pick for voice agents: it makes fewer errors on real conversations and finishes the transcript 642ms 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. Gradium shows first text after 4.45% and Inworld STT-1 after 10.60%, at the median.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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