Inworld STT-1vsGPT-4o 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)
  • STT-12.72% · 41ms
  • 4o Transcribe3.90% · 652ms

Inworld STT-1 is ahead of GPT-4o Transcribe on final-text delay. The Pipecat Dataset and The Ocular Dataset are too close to call.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

STT-14o Transcribe
  • Pipecat Dataset WER2.72%3.90%
  • Ocular Dataset WER10.60%12.45%
  • Time to first text1.06sn/a
  • Final-text delay41ms652ms

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

STT-1 vs 4o Transcribe FAQ

  • Inworld STT-1 and GPT-4o Transcribe are too close to call on accuracy. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Inworld STT-1 scores 2.72% and GPT-4o Transcribe 3.90%, with likely ranges of 1.67 to 4.68% and 3.43 to 4.42%. The ranges overlap, so the difference is too close to call. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Inworld STT-1 scores 10.60% and GPT-4o Transcribe 12.45%, with likely ranges of 3.85 to 22.76% and 7.23 to 19.58%. 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. Inworld STT-1 finishes the transcript 611ms sooner. Inworld STT-1 has the final transcript 41ms after the speaker stops and GPT-4o Transcribe 652ms, at the median. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Inworld STT-1 finishes the transcript 611ms 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 Inworld STT-1. GPT-4o Transcribe returns no text until the speaker stops, which matters if your agent reacts to partial transcripts.