LiveKit
- Strength
- Ranks second on repeatable reliability with 99.19% infrastructure-clean calls.
- What can be improved
- Consent was collected, but consent_id was omitted from the handoff tool.
STT, LLM and TTS
- nova-3
- openai/gpt-4.1
- sonic-3
All platform comparisons
LiveKit · ranked 2 of 8Pipecat · ranked 6 of 8
LiveKit vs Pipecat
LiveKit is ahead on repeatable reliability, task completion, infrastructure reliability, tool call accuracy and voice tone and clarity, and Pipecat on response time. The two tie on interruption handling.
Last updated Methodology by Luis Ojeda
Verdict
Which to pick
Pick LiveKit for reliability across repeated runs (7.32 points higher), completing the caller's task (0.91 points higher), calls that connect and stay up (2.04 points higher), accurate tool calls (0.09 higher) and how the agent sounds (0.62 higher). Pick Pipecat for fast replies (0.62s faster). They are level on handling interruptions.
Head to head
Every metric, side by side
Bars share one scale across all 8 platforms. The place next to each figure is its rank in the field.
Repeatable reliability
Share of the 82 scenarios that passed on all three runs.
- LiveKit
- 70.73%2nd
- Pipecat
- 63.41%6th
LiveKit, 7.32 points higher
Task completion
Calls where the expected outcome was fully reached.
- LiveKit
- 95.12%3rd
- Pipecat
- 94.21%4th
LiveKit, 0.91 points higher
Infrastructure-clean calls
Calls with no connection, audio or platform failure.
- LiveKit
- 99.19%3rd
- Pipecat
- 97.15%5th
LiveKit, 2.04 points higher
Tool call accuracy
Mean score for calling the right tool with the right arguments.
- LiveKit
- 4.67/54th
- Pipecat
- 4.58/55th
LiveKit, 0.09 higher
Voice tone and clarity
Mean score for how clear and natural the agent sounds.
- LiveKit
- 4.36/52nd
- Pipecat
- 3.74/57th
LiveKit, 0.62 higher
Interruption handling
Mean score for yielding and recovering when the caller cuts in.
- LiveKit
- 4.97/53rd
- Pipecat
- 4.97/53rd
Level
Mean response time
Mean time for the agent to start replying after the caller stops.
- LiveKit
- 2.59s6th
- Pipecat
- 1.97s4th
Pipecat, 0.62s faster
246 calls per platform: 82 scenarios, 3 runs each.
On the calls
What each platform ran, and what we saw
Pipecat
- Strength
- A 1.97s response time with 94.21% task completion across 242 scored calls.
- What can be improved
- Routing completed, but the returned route ID was omitted from the handoff.
STT, LLM and TTS
- nova-3-general
- gpt-4.1
- sonic-3.5
Frequently asked questions
Is LiveKit or Pipecat more reliable?
LiveKit is more reliable, by 7.32 points. LiveKit passed 70.73% of the 82 scenarios on all 3 runs and Pipecat passed 63.41%. A scenario only counts when every run of it passed.
Which responds faster, LiveKit or Pipecat?
Pipecat starts replying sooner, 0.62s faster. Mean response time is 2.59s for LiveKit and 1.97s for Pipecat.
Which completes more calls, LiveKit or Pipecat?
LiveKit reached the expected outcome on 95.12% of calls and Pipecat on 94.21%. LiveKit is ahead on task completion.
How were LiveKit and Pipecat tested?
Both ran the same Appointment and Medicare agents through the same 82 caller scenarios, 3 times each, with the same evaluators and mock tools. Only the platform and its speech and model components changed.