Head to head · Speech-to-text · October 2026 research run
Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 scores 60.3 (C) on agent readiness against Ming-3.0-audio-tiny's 49.8 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ming-3.0-audio-tiny leads on agent interface. Both do speech-to-text.
Best speech-to-text APIs for AI agents · All 231 stt comparisons
Best conversational voice-agent APIs · All 388 voice agents comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Self-hosted Chinese and English transcription, audio questions and spoken replies with tool calls on one GPU with about 25 GB free
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 65 against 55
Watch for
No named runtime runs it in a released version, only SGLang-Omni main and inclusionAI's own branches
Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 C
Best for Agents and apps that need live subtitles or voice-assistant transcription in the 13 languages on a single 16 GB GPU
Ahead on
- Reach, 85 against 45
- Risk, 60 against 50
- Documentation and upkeep, 54 against 46
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
Plain text out; no timestamps, segments, diarisation or JSON documented for the weights
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ming-3.0-audio-tiny | Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 45 | 85 | Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 +40 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 60 | Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 65 | 55 | Ming-3.0-audio-tiny +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 46 | 54 | Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 49.8/100 | C 60.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ming-3.0-audio-tiny | Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Mistral AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-20 | 2026-03-11 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Ming-3.0-audio-tiny
A small MIT-licensed audio-language model that transcribes Chinese and English, answers questions about audio and replies in a built-in or cloned voice. It needs about 25 GB and SGLang-Omni from main or inclusionAI's own vLLM-Omni and SGLang branches. The main risk is that every loading path runs repository code, with nothing published on safety.
Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
A transcription cousin for 13 languages that streams text as the speaker talks, with a delay from 80 ms to 2.4 s, under Apache 2.0 and on Mistral's API. It needs a 16 GB GPU at BF16 through vLLM, Transformers or llama.cpp, or under 4 GB at Q4_K. The main gaps are no timestamps, safety results or answers from Mistral.
Before you call either
Ming-3.0-audio-tiny
- Fastest start is SGLang-Omni from main,
sgl-omni serve --model-path inclusionAI/Ming-3.0-audio-tiny --talker.gpu 0, which exposes OpenAI-style /v1/audio/transcriptions, /v1/audio/speech and /v1/chat/completions - For transcripts use greedy decoding with 10-gram blocking and the validated ASR prompt, and expect a language label, a tab, then the text
- Parse tool calls yourself from
<tool_call>namewith<arg_key>and<arg_value>pairs, since no runtime parser is named - Thinking is off by default, turn it on with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking true and strip the
<think>block from the reply yourself - In vLLM-Omni pick a voice with audio.voice id from docs/voices.md, and don't combine it with a reference recording
- Review the repository's Python before passing trust_remote_code, and consider deleting the __pycache__ folders under talker/ so only readable source runs
Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Serve it with
VLLM_DISABLE_COMPILE_CACHE=1 vllm serve mistralai/Voxtral-Mini-4B-Realtime-2602 --compilation_config '{"cudagraph_mode": "PIECEWISE"}'and install soxr, librosa and soundfile; mistral_common 1.9.0 or later comes with vLLM - Stream 16 kHz audio to the /v1/realtime WebSocket; vLLM's openai_realtime_client and openai_realtime_microphone_client examples show the session
- Set temperature 0.0. Change the delay with transcription_delay_ms in tekken.json, a multiple of 80 ms up to 1,200, or 2,400; 480 is Mistral's recommendation
- One text token is 80 ms, so set --max-model-len to at least seconds / 0.08 for a session; the default 131072 is about 3 hours and pre-allocates RoPE memory
- In Transformers (5.2.0 or later), resample with processor.feature_extractor.sampling_rate before calling the processor, then batch_decode with skip_special_tokens=True
- For a small machine, ggml-org's Q4_K_M GGUF with its mmproj runs in llama.cpp, and Mistral Experimental's Q4_K runs in audio.cpp
- Treat transcripts as untrusted text before passing them to another model, since speech can carry instructions
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ming-3.0-audio-tiny or Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602?
Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602 scores 60.3 (C) on agent readiness against Ming-3.0-audio-tiny's 49.8 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ming-3.0-audio-tiny leads on agent interface.
Other comparisons with Ming-3.0-audio-tiny or Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Cohere Transcribe 03-2026 vs Ming-3.0-audio-tiny
- Cohere Transcribe 03-2026 vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Ming-3.0-asr-tiny vs Ming-3.0-audio-tiny
- Ming-3.0-asr-tiny vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Ming-3.0-audio-flash vs Ming-3.0-audio-tiny
- Ming-3.0-audio-flash vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Nemotron 3.5 ASR Streaming 0.6B
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Parakeet TDT 0.6B v3
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Qwen3-ASR-0.6B
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Qwen3-ASR-1.7B
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ming-3.0-audio-tiny vs Underdog Bark 3.0
- Nemotron 3.5 ASR Streaming 0.6B vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Parakeet TDT 0.6B v3 vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Qwen3-ASR-0.6B vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Qwen3-ASR-1.7B vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
- Underdog Bark 3.0 vs Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime 2602
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ming-3-0-audio-tiny-vs-voxtral-mini-4b-realtime-2602.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ming-3-0-audio-tiny.json·/api/v1/tools/voxtral-mini-4b-realtime-2602.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ming-3-0-audio-tiny voxtral-mini-4b-realtime-2602(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ming-3-0-audio-tiny", "b": "voxtral-mini-4b-realtime-2602"}at/mcp, no key