Why the “Best” ASR Engine Is Often the Wrong Choice, and What to Do About It
Automatic speech recognition has reached an inflection point. It’s no longer a novelty you demo once and forget. It’s embedded in customer service, operations, field work, compliance, analytics, and search. And as soon as speech becomes a business input, a familiar pattern emerges: the organization standardizes on one ASR engine, celebrates early results, and then runs into a wall of inconsistency.
That inconsistency isn’t a bug. It’s the nature of speech.
The same solution that performs brilliantly on clean, studio-like audio can falter when conditions change: a different accent, a noisy environment, overlapping speakers, poor phone connections, or domain-specific terms like product names, part numbers, or financial jargon. The result is a painful enterprise paradox. A vendor can be “best on average,” yet still be the wrong choice for a meaningful share of real interactions.
QUASAR was built to solve that last-mile problem. It’s a Speech Intelligence Gateway that routes each audio request to the ASR option most likely to perform best for that specific moment, based on the user, the context, and the audio conditions. Accuracy becomes more consistent, not just impressive in a lab.
→ Apply for Early Access 🧑💻 👩💻
The business problem: averages hide the calls that matter most
Most ASR purchase decisions are made using aggregate benchmark results. That’s rational: leadership wants a single number, a single provider, and a single contract. But averages mask variance. And variance is where businesses pay the price.
In practice, different ASR providers tend to have different “strength profiles.” One may be highly consistent with clean speech. Another may be more resilient to accented speech or fast speakers. A third might handle certain terminology better. When you choose one engine, you implicitly accept that some portion of your traffic will be processed by a provider that is not the best fit for that particular audio.
Those misses accumulate into tangible outcomes: lower call containment, poorer summaries, weaker downstream analytics, higher QA burden, and higher risk when a name, number, or key phrase is misheard.
Our evaluation data highlights just how misleading averages can be. On several clean-speech benchmarks, the provider with the lowest overall error rate was not the provider that won the most individual samples. Another engine produced the best transcript on roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of clips in those conditions. In other words, “best overall” is often different from “best per request.” And per-request performance is what your customers and employees actually experience.
To make that concrete: imagine a contact center processing 10,000 calls a day. Even if you picked an engine that looks best on paper, thousands of those calls could still be handled by a suboptimal ASR choice. QUASAR exists to close that gap, choosing the most suitable engine call-by-call rather than locking every request into a single, static decision.
Why routing is hard: you can’t improve what you can’t measure
Routing only works if you can reliably measure quality at scale. Historically, the gold standard for measuring ASR performance is comparing machine transcripts to human-annotated “ground truth.” That works for controlled studies, but it breaks down operationally when you’re making routing decisions across millions of utterances.
Human transcription is expensive and slow. The typical cost range is about $0.50 to $2.00 per minute of audio, with turnaround measured in days to weeks. That timeline doesn’t match real-time optimization. It also doesn’t scale: you can’t label everything, so you sample, and sampling limits personalization and coverage. Even with expert annotators, there’s natural variability. Humans can disagree 5 to 10% of the time on what was said, especially on messy audio.
This measurement bottleneck prevents organizations from doing the things they increasingly want to do with speech: continuously evaluate model performance, detect drift, compare providers fairly, optimize cost versus quality, and tailor accuracy to different user populations.
What QUASAR changes: “best-engine-per-request” as a practical operating model
QUASAR is designed as a gateway that makes multi-provider ASR orchestration practical. It supports routing across multiple ASR sources, including commercial cloud APIs, self-hosted options, and custom deployments, without forcing the business to bet on a single engine forever. More importantly, it introduces a scalable way to continuously assess transcription quality without requiring human labeling for every decision.
At a business level, this creates two important capabilities.
First, QUASAR learns where each ASR option is strongest. That makes it possible to deliver hyper-personalized accuracy: different routing behavior for different accents, domains, environments, and workflows, rather than pushing one model onto everyone and hoping for the best.
Second, it enables confidence-aware operations. Not every request is equally hard. When audio is clear and providers tend to converge, routing can be fast and decisive. When audio is challenging and outcomes are less predictable, QUASAR flags uncertainty so teams can respond appropriately, whether that means exploring an alternative engine, applying stricter QA, or escalating to review in higher-stakes scenarios.
Validation: what our evaluation shows
To validate that this approach is robust enough for real use, we evaluated QUASAR’s ability to select the best-performing ASR option across six diverse benchmark datasets, ranging from clean read speech to professional talks, diverse accents, institutional speech, and domain-heavy audio such as financial earnings calls.
Here’s what we found:
88.8% overall accuracy in selecting the best provider (or an equivalent top choice when results were effectively tied).
Performance was strongest where you’d expect routing to be most straightforward: on clean speech, accuracy reached 93 to 97%, a level that’s production-ready for many real-time routing scenarios. On more challenging audio, where accents, noise, and specialized vocabulary create real ambiguity, accuracy remained in the 79 to 88% range. That’s still meaningful, because it gives the business a reliable signal about what to do next rather than leaving decisions to guesswork.
One result that matters especially for operations: QUASAR separates “easy” and “hard” cases in a way that aligns with actual outcomes. When the system indicated high confidence, it chose correctly 92.8% of the time. When it indicated lower confidence, accuracy was 83.5%. That gap is valuable because it allows teams to treat routing not as a brittle black box, but as a controllable decision process with risk-aware guardrails.
Efficiency also matters in production. In the evaluation, roughly 54% of samples were handled through a faster decision path while maintaining approximately 94.5% accuracy on that portion of traffic. The practical implication: you can keep latency low for most requests, while allocating more scrutiny only to the cases that actually warrant it.
What this means for the business
For business leaders, QUASAR is less about “a better ASR model” and more about turning speech recognition into a dependable system.
It reduces operational risk by improving consistency. Fewer downstream failures, fewer manual corrections, and more trust in speech-powered workflows like summarization, analytics, compliance review, and search.
It accelerates expansion. When you enter new regions, languages, or verticals, ASR performance can shift dramatically. A routing approach gives you a way to adapt without rebuilding your entire stack or committing to months of new labeling work.
It enables smarter economics. Not every interaction needs the most expensive option. With continuous quality signals and confidence-aware routing, you can reserve premium processing for the hard cases while maintaining quality standards, rather than paying a flat “premium tax” across all traffic.
It reduces vendor lock-in. Instead of being tied to one provider’s update cycle, pricing changes, or roadmap, you gain flexibility: add new engines, compare them fairly, and adopt improvements quickly, because the system evaluates and learns continuously.
The bottom line
The future of enterprise speech isn’t picking one “best” ASR engine and hoping it generalizes. It’s treating ASR as a dynamic environment where the optimal choice changes from request to request, and building a gateway that can measure, learn, and route accordingly.
QUASAR makes that model practical. It replaces one-size-fits-all decisions with a best-engine-per-request strategy, backed by scalable quality measurement and confidence signals that support real operational guardrails. The result is speech recognition that doesn’t just look strong in a benchmark. It behaves reliably where businesses actually need it: in the messy, diverse, high-volume reality of production audio.
Early access waitlist is open. Spots are not.
We’re handpicking a small group of developers and engineering teams tackling real-world, high-volume voice AI challenges where QUASAR can make the biggest difference. This isn’t a public beta. It’s a curated cohort of builders who are processing speech at scale and know firsthand that no single ASR model wins everywhere.
If that’s you, apply below. We’ll review every submission and reach out personally to those selected.
