OpenTranscription
OpenTranscription
RankerModelsPlayground
OpenTranscription
OpenTranscription

One API to every speech-to-text model worth using. Compare them on your audio, route to the best one, pay per second.

Platform status

Product

RankerModelsTranscriptionsPlaygroundBlog

Developers

DocumentationReliabilityAPI VersioningStatus

Legal

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSupport
© 2026 OpenTranscription
Back to Models

Qwen3 ASR Flash vs GPT-4o Transcribe

2 models compared on the same benchmark — accuracy, latency, price, language coverage and capabilities. Qwen3 ASR Flash leads on raw accuracy; GPT-4o Transcribe is fastest; GPT-4o Transcribe covers the most languages; Qwen3 ASR Flash is cheapest.

Open both in playground

Verdict · who wins what

Most accurate

Qwen3 ASR Flash

12.3% WER

Alibaba (Qwen)

Fastest

GPT-4o Transcribe

0.2× realtime

OpenAI

Most languages

GPT-4o Transcribe

98 languages

OpenAI

Cheapest

Qwen3 ASR Flash

$0.0021/min

Alibaba (Qwen)

Comparing

2 models · same benchmark

1

Batch

Qwen3 ASR Flash

Alibaba (Qwen)

$0.0021/min
#8 · 69.1

Alibaba Qwen3-ASR Flash — multilingual batch transcription (25+ languages) with word-level timestamps and automatic language detection, served from Model Studio (Singapore). Handles files up to 12 hours.

Use This ModelDetails →

2

Batch

GPT-4o Transcribe

OpenAI

$0.0060/min
#15 · 74.0

GPT-4o optimized for transcription with improved WER

Use This ModelDetails →

Overview

30-day benchmark average

Overall score

0–100

69.1

74.0

Accuracy rank

of 36

#8

#15

Word error rate

WER

12.3%

14.8%

Character error rate

CER

7.4%

11.6%

Match error rate

MER

11.2%

14.3%

Word info lost

WIL

14.3%

18.9%

Languages

25

98

Cost vs. accuracy

overall WER vs price

GPT-4o Transcribe

Qwen3 ASR Flash

field · 34 models

lower-left is better

Accuracy by category

WER · lower is better

code_switching

18.4%
44.8%

conversational

9.7%
25.8%

finance

6.0%
6.4%

general

11.3%
8.3%

legal

3.6%
3.6%

medical

7.0%
11.6%

noisy

29.2%
34.6%

technical

4.0%
18.2%

Accuracy by accent

WER · English

african

24.6%
26.2%

australian

13.9%
12.3%

indian

20.6%
27.0%

uk

1.5%
4.5%

us

1.9%
18.9%

Speed & latency

p50 → p99

Processing speed

× realtime

0.1×

0.2×

Latency p50

7.0s

2.5s

Latency p90

7.0s

2.8s

Latency p99

7.0s

2.8s

Realtime / streaming

Streaming benchmark averages

Realtime rank

—

—

Realtime score

0–100

—

—

Time to first word

—

—

Final drain

—

—

Real-time factor

—

—

Flicker

—

—

Cadence

—

—

Reliability

Rolling 30 days

Uptime

87.50%

0.00%

Error rate

12.50%

100.00%

Pricing

billed per second

Rate

per minute

$0.0021

$0.0060

Billing granularity

per 1s

per 1s

1 hour of audio

$0.13

$0.36

100 hours

$12.60

$36.00

1,000 hours

$126.00

$360.00

Capabilities

Feature support

Speaker diarization

No

No

Word-level timestamps

Yes

No

Code-switching

No

No

Auto-detect language

Yes

Yes

Live / streaming

No

No

Custom vocabulary

No

No

Coverage & deployment

Languages · formats · regions

Languages

25

98

Mode

Batch

Batch

Region

Singapore

United States

Audio formats

mp3
wav
flac
m4a
ogg
webm
aac
amr
mp3
wav
flac
m4a
ogg
webm

Max file size

2 GB

25 MB

Max duration

12 h

No limit

Compliance

—

SOC2
GDPR

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 ASR Flash or GPT-4o Transcribe more accurate?

Qwen3 ASR Flash is more accurate, with a 12.3% word error rate versus 14.8% for GPT-4o Transcribe, on our standardized benchmark.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 ASR Flash or GPT-4o Transcribe?

Qwen3 ASR Flash is cheaper at $0.0021/min versus $0.0060/min for GPT-4o Transcribe.

Should you choose Qwen3 ASR Flash or GPT-4o Transcribe?

Choose Qwen3 ASR Flash for accuracy and lower cost; choose GPT-4o Transcribe for speed and language coverage.