GPT-4o Mini Transcribe vs Speechmatics Linden

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)
  • 4o Mini Transcribe3.35% · 630ms
  • Linden2.46% · 147ms

Speechmatics Linden is ahead of GPT-4o Mini Transcribe on both datasets together, the Pipecat Dataset and final-text delay. The Ocular Dataset is too close to call.

Last updated Methodology by Dileep Chagam

Who is better at what

4o Mini TranscribeLinden
  • Overall WER3.73%2.97%
  • Pipecat Dataset WER3.35%2.46%
  • Ocular Dataset WER4.45%3.93%
  • Time to first textn/a1.19s
  • Final-text delay630ms147ms

Lower is better on every measure. Too close to call means the likely ranges overlap. Our guide covers testing OpenAI Realtime API voice agents.

4o Mini Transcribe vs Linden FAQ

  • Speechmatics Linden is more accurate on both datasets. On the 1,000 public Pipecat clips, GPT-4o Mini Transcribe scores 3.73% and Speechmatics Linden 2.97%, so Speechmatics Linden makes fewer errors by 0.77 points. On the eight licensed Ocular recordings, GPT-4o Mini Transcribe scores 3.35% and Speechmatics Linden 2.46%, so Speechmatics Linden makes fewer errors by 0.90 points. Word error rate counts incorrect, missing, and extra words, so lower is better.

  • Final-text delay was not measured for one or both, so speed cannot be compared. Both are measured on the same 206 streamed turns.

  • Speechmatics Linden makes fewer errors on real conversations, and the two are not separated on speed. A voice agent cannot reply until the final transcript arrives, and the Ocular recordings are real conversations.

  • Only Speechmatics Linden. GPT-4o Mini Transcribe returns no text until the speaker stops, which matters if your agent reacts to partial transcripts.

Test your voice agent the same way.

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