All comparisons
InworldOpenAI

Inworld STT-1 vs GPT-4o Transcribe

Inworld STT-1 is ahead of GPT-4o Transcribe on the Pipecat Dataset, the Ocular Dataset and final-text delay.

Compare

Quality and speed frontier

Every model's error rate on the public clips, against how long its transcript takes to settle.

Most attractive quadrantPareto line
Final-text delay P50 (ms)
◣ better
Pipecat Dataset WER (%)
The line is the frontier: no model beats these on one measure without giving up the other.
Head to head

The four metrics, side by side

Pipecat Dataset WER

Word error rate on 1,000 clips from Pipecat's STT benchmark dataset.

Inworld STT-1
2.72%8th
GPT-4o Transcribe
3.90%12th

Inworld STT-1, 1.19 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

Inworld STT-1
10.60%14th
GPT-4o Transcribe
12.45%15th

Inworld STT-1, 1.85 points lower

Time to first text

Median delay before the first words arrive, from the first audio packet.

Inworld STT-1
1.06s5th
GPT-4o Transcribe
No text until the speaker stops

Not comparable

Final-text delay

Median delay after the speaker stops before the transcript is final.

Inworld STT-1
41ms1st
GPT-4o Transcribe
652ms15th

Inworld STT-1, 611ms sooner

Lower is better on every metric. The small figure is each model's place in the whole field.

Latency

First text and final text, at three percentiles

Both measured on the same 206 streamed Ocular Dataset turns. P90 and P95 say what a caller meets on a bad turn, which a median hides.

MeasureModelP50P90P95
Time to first textInworld STT-11.06s1.07s1.07s
GPT-4o TranscribeNo text until the speaker stops
Final-text delayInworld STT-141ms60ms65ms
GPT-4o Transcribe652ms1.73s1.97s
Ranking

Both against every other model

Open on the metric where the two sit furthest apart, with the other three a tab away.

Final-text delay after the speaker stops. Lower is better.

Median across the same 206 Ocular Dataset turns. Providers finalize differently, so compare models with similar finalization contracts before treating small gaps as meaningful.

Against the field

Both on the other two views

Pipecat vs Ocular accuracy

Every model's error rate on the public clips, against the same model on real conversations.

Most attractive quadrant
Ocular Dataset WER (%)
◣ better
Pipecat Dataset WER (%)

Transcription response time

How soon each model returns its first words, against how soon its transcript is final.

Most attractive quadrant
Final-text delay P50 (ms)
◣ better
Time to first text P50 (ms)
Coverage

What the numbers rest on

ModelPipecat clipsOcular recordingsTurns timedFailed
Inworld STT-11,00082060
GPT-4o Transcribe1,00082060

A clip counts only where the model returned usable text, so counts differ between models. Word error rate is measured the same way throughout: incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript.

Questions

Frequently asked questions

Is Inworld STT-1 or GPT-4o Transcribe more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Inworld STT-1 scores 2.72% and GPT-4o Transcribe 3.90%, so Inworld STT-1 makes fewer errors by 1.19 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Inworld STT-1 scores 10.60% and GPT-4o Transcribe 12.45%, so Inworld STT-1 makes fewer errors by 1.85 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words against the reference transcript, so lower is better.

Which is faster, Inworld STT-1 or GPT-4o Transcribe?

GPT-4o Transcribe returns no text while the speaker is talking, so time to first text cannot be compared. Inworld STT-1 has the final transcript 611ms sooner, 41ms after the speaker stops against 652ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were Inworld STT-1 and GPT-4o Transcribe compared?

Both ran the same two datasets under the same conditions as every other model in the benchmark: 1,000 public clips from Pipecat's STT benchmark dataset and eight licensed conversation recordings from Ocular. Inworld STT-1 returned usable text for 1,000 of the public clips and GPT-4o Transcribe for 1,000. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.