vedvasusquad's picture
SquadStack Conversational Streaming ASR Benchmark (8 kHz) v1.0.0
ac93488
|
Raw History Blame Contribute Delete
9.29 kB

Leaderboard

Written from the scored output of the benchmark run. That output is the single source of truth; this file and the figures derive from it. Pooled over the 863 calls and about 67,000 reference words (67,388 to 67,393 per system).

Ordering. Every table is ordered ascending by its own metric (lowest, best, first). ★ marks SquadStack's in-house systems: they are ranked with the others, not separated, and marked because a model tuned on this kind of audio is not a like-for-like peer of a general-purpose endpoint.

Reading the numbers. These are point estimates. The top four systems are within about 0.5 points of each other and should not be ranked on this table alone. Confidence intervals and paired comparisons are planned for the next release.

Overall

System Vendor Category Semantic WER Raw WER Share of raw errors that change meaning
Soniox v5 Soniox Commercial 8.77 27.29 32%
Arth V2 ★ SquadStack In-house 8.85 29.14 30%
Arth V1 ★ SquadStack In-house 9.17 29.83 31%
Nova 3 Deepgram Commercial 9.31 30.98 30%
Saaras v4 Sarvam Commercial 10.84 33.25 33%
Cartesia ink-2 Cartesia Commercial 11.58 36.27 32%
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe Google Commercial 11.93 35.82 33%
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe OpenAI Commercial 12.30 38.14 32%
Chirp 3 Google Commercial 12.47 34.03 37%
Flux Deepgram Commercial 14.33 37.76 38%
Scribe v2 Realtime ElevenLabs Commercial 22.09 54.95 40%

Raw WER by edit type

The three components sum to raw WER (percent of reference words). A deletion-heavy system drops speech; an insertion-heavy one invents it.

System Raw WER Substitutions Deletions Insertions
Soniox v5 27.29 12.66 5.45 9.17
Arth V2 ★ 29.14 13.17 8.05 7.92
Arth V1 ★ 29.83 13.42 8.96 7.45
Nova 3 30.98 11.69 14.49 4.80
Saaras v4 33.25 14.73 6.26 12.26
Chirp 3 34.03 15.14 10.96 7.93
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 35.82 14.48 14.67 6.68
Cartesia ink-2 36.27 14.69 3.84 17.73
Flux 37.76 18.28 12.91 6.56
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 38.14 18.16 13.52 6.46
Scribe v2 Realtime 54.95 23.99 9.09 21.87

Rank: raw WER against semantic WER

System Raw rank Semantic rank Change
Soniox v5 1 1 0
Arth V2 ★ 2 2 0
Arth V1 ★ 3 3 0
Nova 3 4 4 0
Saaras v4 5 5 0
Cartesia ink-2 8 6 +2
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 7 7 0
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 10 8 +2
Chirp 3 6 9 -3
Flux 9 10 -1
Scribe v2 Realtime 11 11 0

Semantic WER by code-mixing (from the human reference)

System low_mix
n=139
mid_mix
n=460
high_mix
n=264
Soniox v5 8.6 8.2 10.4
Arth V2 ★ 8.0 8.7 9.7
Arth V1 ★ 8.0 8.8 10.8
Nova 3 8.0 9.1 10.8
Saaras v4 11.0 9.8 13.6
Cartesia ink-2 12.1 10.4 14.5
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 11.1 11.1 14.8
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 11.5 11.7 14.4
Chirp 3 10.9 11.9 15.2
Flux 13.0 13.4 17.8
Scribe v2 Realtime 21.9 21.1 24.9

Semantic WER by acoustic condition

System clean
n=107
moderate
n=509
noisy
n=247
Soniox v5 4.9 9.4 12.7
Arth V2 ★ 6.7 9.4 10.5
Arth V1 ★ 7.0 9.5 11.5
Nova 3 6.2 10.0 12.0
Saaras v4 6.7 11.6 14.7
Cartesia ink-2 5.6 12.8 17.1
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 7.8 12.8 15.7
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 8.8 13.0 15.4
Chirp 3 7.3 14.0 16.0
Flux 11.2 15.4 16.2
Scribe v2 Realtime 17.2 23.1 26.5

The code-mixing and noise margins overlap (the grid is unbalanced). Read the nine-cell grid in the dataset card for the joint view.

Semantic WER by domain

System BFSI
n=122
Education
n=54
Logistics
n=260
Marketplace
n=240
Travel
n=187
Soniox v5 8.0 6.5 8.1 13.9 7.9
Arth V2 ★ 8.3 7.3 8.2 12.2 8.6
Arth V1 ★ 9.1 6.9 8.2 12.8 8.7
Nova 3 9.3 6.1 8.7 13.6 8.5
Saaras v4 12.7 6.8 10.2 14.2 8.5
Cartesia ink-2 11.8 6.2 12.9 16.2 9.8
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 13.2 7.2 12.1 15.4 10.0
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 13.2 8.4 11.3 17.5 10.1
Chirp 3 13.9 7.9 13.1 16.2 9.6
Flux 14.4 12.0 13.1 19.3 12.8
Scribe v2 Realtime 24.3 16.0 19.5 26.0 21.9

Education is 54 calls; read it as a direction, not a number.

Semantic WER by speaker gender

System Female
n=146
Male
n=717
Soniox v5 8.6 8.8
Arth V2 ★ 8.3 9.0
Arth V1 ★ 8.3 9.3
Nova 3 8.1 9.5
Saaras v4 10.4 10.9
Cartesia ink-2 10.4 11.8
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 11.0 12.1
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 11.6 12.4
Chirp 3 11.9 12.6
Flux 12.7 14.7
Scribe v2 Realtime 22.4 22.0

There are 146 female calls (16.9%), 12 of them labelled from the model vote. The gender comparison is indicative only.

Semantic WER by error class

The judge assigns each meaning-changing error a class. The classes partition the semantic errors, so each row sums to its semantic WER (percent of reference words). A wrong number or a flipped negation changes the outcome of a call; a content error usually costs a retry.

System Semantic WER Number Negation Name Commitment Content Other
Soniox v5 8.77 1.07 0.43 0.77 0.30 6.18 0.00
Arth V2 ★ 8.85 1.10 0.52 0.92 0.42 5.89 0.00
Arth V1 ★ 9.17 1.11 0.52 0.99 0.41 6.14 0.01
Nova 3 9.31 1.24 0.55 1.11 0.48 5.92 0.00
Saaras v4 10.84 1.29 0.59 0.90 0.50 7.55 0.01
Cartesia ink-2 11.58 1.15 0.60 0.93 0.42 8.47 0.00
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe 11.93 1.43 0.79 0.95 0.65 8.08 0.01
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe 12.30 1.59 0.68 1.02 0.46 8.55 0.00
Chirp 3 12.47 1.91 0.70 0.91 0.52 8.41 0.02
Flux 14.33 1.68 0.86 1.36 0.64 9.79 0.01
Scribe v2 Realtime 22.09 2.11 1.33 1.47 0.92 16.25 0.02

Judge validation

Semantic WER is judged by an LLM, so its agreement with human adjudication is part of the result. This table is to be measured on a stratified sample of errors with two annotators and is not part of version 1.0.0:

Sample size to be measured
Agreement between judge and human adjudication to be measured
Per-call correlation to be measured

Latency

FTR is the time from our end-of-turn finalize signal (sent at each production voice-activity stop) to the vendor's final reply for that turn. The table gives the 80th percentile over all turns, ordered by it. Measured on a locked 50-call set (70 minutes of audio, stratified by duration), streamed in real time at 5 concurrency from one server in Delhi, one vendor at a time. Semantic WER is from the 863-call run.

Full method, P50–P99 and TTFS per system: LATENCY.md.

System Region Hosting FTR P80 (ms) Semantic WER
Arth V2 ★ India Self-hosted 67.0 8.85
Arth V1 ★ India Self-hosted 67.0 9.17
Scribe v2 Realtime India Provider cloud 86.5 22.09
Soniox v5 India Provider cloud 89.4 8.77
Nova 3 India Provider cloud 93.8 9.31
Flux India Provider cloud 124.4 14.33
Saaras v4 India Provider cloud 176.7 10.84
Cartesia ink-2 India Provider cloud 183.6 11.58
Gemini 3.5 Transcribe not documented Provider cloud 264.2 11.93
OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe not documented Provider cloud 830.8 12.30

Notes:

  • Soniox v5 is measured on its India regional endpoint; the Japan, EU and US endpoints are compared in LATENCY.md (Japan gave an FTR P80 of 236.2 ms).
  • Sarvam and Gemini do not tag their reply, so their FTR is inferred as the first final received after the finalize signal.
  • OpenAI streams the turn text about 400 ms before the final event that FTR measures.
  • Chirp 3 does not support a client-side finalize, so FTR does not apply.

Systems and versions

All 11 systems were scored on the same 863 recordings through the same pipeline. Model identifiers: Arth V1 and V2 (SquadStack), Deepgram Nova 3 and Flux, Soniox stt-rt-v5, Sarvam Saaras v4, ElevenLabs Scribe v2 Realtime, Cartesia ink-2, Google Chirp 3, Gemini 3.5 Transcribe (live), OpenAI gpt-live-transcribe.

Submitting

See SUBMISSION.md.