Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Deepgram vs Google Cloud Text-to-Speech comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Deepgram
Ranking in Text-To-Speech Services
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Speech-To-Text Services (1st), AI Customer Support (8th), AI Sales & Marketing (3rd), AI Scheduling & Coordination (1st)
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech
Ranking in Text-To-Speech Services
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Text-To-Speech Services category, the mindshare of Deepgram is 10.0%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Cloud Text-to-Speech is 21.8%, down from 29.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Text-To-Speech Services Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Google Cloud Text-to-Speech21.8%
Deepgram10.0%
Other68.2%
Text-To-Speech Services
 

Featured Reviews

Arunkumar HG - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology Architect & Hands-On Leader | Prototyping, Automation, AI/LLM Integration | 20+ Years in at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
A Powerful, Adaptable, and Constantly Evolving STT Solution for Voice Automation
Honestly, Deepgram has been exceptionally proactive in addressing the primary area that needed improvement. My main challenge was with the real-time detection of when a user has finished speaking in a live conversation, which is critical for a responsive voice bot. They directly solved this by releasing their Flux model. Because Flux is a recent release, I haven't yet had enough time to thoroughly test it and identify new limitations. At this stage, any "improvement" would be more of a "nice-to-have" feature rather than a fix for an existing problem. The core service is already very robust and meets all of our current needs. What additional features should be included in the next release? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Looking toward the future, here are a few features that could add even more value to an already excellent platform: * Advanced Built-in Analytics: While I can get the raw transcript and build my own analytics pipeline, it would be powerful to have features like sentiment analysis, emotion detection, or automatic summarization offered directly through the API. This would save significant development time. * More Granular Speaker Diarization: For calls with multiple participants, enhancing the real-time speaker diarization (labeling who is speaking) to be even more precise would be a fantastic addition for creating detailed call analyses. * Tighter Integration with TTS: Since Deepgram is also expanding into Text-to-Speech (TTS), offering a more seamlessly integrated STT-to-TTS pipeline could simplify the development stack for creating voice agents from start to finish. * Specialized, Pre-Trained Industry Models: While the general models are highly accurate, offering even more specialized, pre-trained models for specific industries like finance, healthcare, or legal-which are heavy on specific jargon-could push the accuracy even higher for those niche use cases.
reviewer2252211 - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Architect & NLP Python Developer at a computer software company with 1-10 employees
Support issues overshadow solid features in daily operations
The support is inadequate. We are dealing with them on our development talk today. There's a lot of finger-pointing going on in terms of whose problem it is. Moving our stuff up to the Google Cloud and getting it to work just as well as it does on people's development machines is problematic. Their support for that, even though we paid for it, isn't really very helpful. That's prevalent in the computer business. You need to have your own experts, otherwise you're really in trouble. The product is an eight out of 10. The support is at best a five. We have to write certain features ourselves because their offerings aren't very powerful. When I don't have a problem, it works pretty well, better than anybody else. But when I do have a problem, I'm severely impacted. It takes a lot of time and money to go back and fix it. What has gotten better with Google Cloud Text-to-Speech is their stuff sounds so natural, it really brings a smile to my face. I wish their support would be better.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Deepgram is able to handle large volumes of audio data without compromising accuracy."
"The recognition of industry-specific terminology phrases and abbreviations is really important for us. We were able to get a good level of industry specificity with Deepgram."
"The most valuable capabilities of Deepgram that I've found so far include low latency, as it offers less than 200 milliseconds, which is not provided by any other text-to-speech models."
"The speed of the solution for transcribing videos is good."
"Deepgram's transcription stands out compared to other solutions primarily due to its speed and accuracy; those are important points for me because not all providers or tools handled Spanish well, but Deepgram adjusted perfectly for that use case, and we also chose 11Labs voice, a South American voice, which worked very well with Deepgram."
"Deepgram's low latency transcription has greatly impacted my ability to deliver reliable voice agents and provided very good transcription."
"The features that I have been using in the tool have been very stable."
"The solution's Speech-to-Text conversion feature is really awesome."
"It's not complex to set up."
"What has gotten better with Google Cloud Text-to-Speech is their stuff sounds so natural, it really brings a smile to my face."
"Precision is the most valuable feature of Google Cloud Text-to-Speech because the text is perfectly voiced."
 

Cons

"Regarding improvements for Deepgram, I think the quality of the transcriptions could be enhanced, as the Spanish accent poses challenges, making it harder to transcribe some words, and considering additional accents from Chilean or Argentine speakers could improve the model's performance with local words."
"When I had an AI interview for coding, Deepgram didn't capture the names of programming languages or well-known LLMs accurately all the time."
"The solution does not properly identify the number of speakers."
"We haven't seen a return on investment with Deepgram so far; we have been building POCs for the last two years but recently switched to AWS in the last two months due to scalability issues with the pay-as-you-go model."
"I would like it to be more accurate."
"We've had issues in the past where it generates the transcript, and a lot of the text is duplicated."
"Deepgram is currently restricted to only the English variants, but it should include other languages, such as German or French."
"The traditional Speech-to-Text doesn't understand when the user is done speaking in bot conversations."
"Google Cloud Text-to-Speech has just one female voice and one male voice in Brazil, while it has a lot of voices in other countries."
"We had some problems with Dialogflow."
"Google Cloud Text-to-Speech is 100 out of 100 when it works, and when it doesn't work, which is fairly often, it gets a zero."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution’s pricing is cheap."
"When using Deepgram, one needs to pay for the hours or minutes for which the transcription is needed."
"Deepgram is a cheap solution."
"The pricing is moderate."
"I rate Google Cloud Text-to-Speech three out of ten for pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Text-To-Speech Services solutions are best for your needs.
879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Educational Organization
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Large Enterprise1
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Deepgram?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good, as I found it to be cheaper without any problems.
What needs improvement with Deepgram?
Regarding improvements for Deepgram, I think the quality of the transcriptions could be enhanced, as the Spanish accent poses challenges, making it harder to transcribe some words, and considering ...
What is your primary use case for Deepgram?
I use Deepgram for a company that requested me to implement an AI voice agent for a security application that warns other neighbors of near alerts of some incidents that may occur in their neighbor...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Cloud Text-to-Speech?
Our experience is we didn't have any other choice. We can't really say that it's well-priced or badly priced. We just didn't have another choice as far as we were concerned.
What needs improvement with Google Cloud Text-to-Speech?
The support is inadequate. We are dealing with them on our development talk today. There's a lot of finger-pointing going on in terms of whose problem it is. Moving our stuff up to the Google Cloud...
What is your primary use case for Google Cloud Text-to-Speech?
We use Speech-to-Text and Text-to-Speech to be able to talk to our users. We have an AI meaning engine that back-ends that. Once we get the speech, we can tell what it means. That's our use case. W...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Home Depot, Paypal, Target, HSBC, McKesson
Find out what your peers are saying about Deepgram vs. Google Cloud Text-to-Speech and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,310 professionals have used our research since 2012.