All comparisons
InworldSpeechmatics

Inworld STT-1 vs Speechmatics Linden

Inworld STT-1 is ahead on time to first text and final-text delay, and Speechmatics Linden on the Pipecat Dataset and the Ocular Dataset.

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
Speechmatics Linden
2.46%6th

Speechmatics Linden, 0.26 points lower

Ocular Dataset WER

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular.

Inworld STT-1
10.60%14th
Speechmatics Linden
3.93%6th

Speechmatics Linden, 6.67 points lower

Time to first text

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

Inworld STT-1
1.06s5th
Speechmatics Linden
1.19s7th

Inworld STT-1, 127ms sooner

Final-text delay

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

Inworld STT-1
41ms1st
Speechmatics Linden
147ms6th

Inworld STT-1, 106ms 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
Speechmatics Linden1.19s1.56s2.52s
Final-text delayInworld STT-141ms60ms65ms
Speechmatics Linden147ms192ms213ms
Ranking

Both against every other model

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

Word error rate on eight licensed recordings provided by Ocular. Lower is better.

Counts are the clips each model returned usable text for, so they differ between models and between datasets.

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
Speechmatics Linden998819412

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 Speechmatics Linden more accurate?

On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, Inworld STT-1 scores 2.72% and Speechmatics Linden 2.46%, so Speechmatics Linden makes fewer errors by 0.26 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, Inworld STT-1 scores 10.60% and Speechmatics Linden 3.93%, so Speechmatics Linden makes fewer errors by 6.67 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 Speechmatics Linden?

Inworld STT-1 returns first text 127ms sooner, at 1.06s against 1.19s at the median. Inworld STT-1 has the final transcript 106ms sooner, 41ms after the speaker stops against 147ms. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

How were Inworld STT-1 and Speechmatics Linden 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 Speechmatics Linden for 998. Latency uses each provider's own supported finalization contract.