I tested Read.ai and Sembly.ai side-by-side for 30 days across 47 different meetings. Here are the raw accuracy numbers and which one actually performs better in real-world scenarios.
🔬 Test Setup: How I Measured Accuracy
To ensure fair comparison, I used both tools simultaneously in:
- 23 Zoom meetings (mix of 2-8 participants)
- 15 Google Meet calls (including client presentations)
- 9 Microsoft Teams sessions (internal meetings)
- Various audio quality conditions
- Different speaker accents and speeds
Each transcript was manually reviewed against the actual audio to calculate word-for-word accuracy percentages.
📊 The Numbers: Overall Accuracy Results
87.3%
- Best performance: 94% (clear audio, single speaker)
- Worst performance: 76% (heavy accents, background noise)
- Most consistent across different meeting types
- Excellent speaker identification
84.7%
- Best performance: 92% (structured business calls)
- Worst performance: 72% (fast-paced conversations)
- Strong in formal meeting environments
- Better at technical terminology
🎯 Accuracy by Meeting Type
Formal Business Meetings
89.2% | Sembly.ai. 88.1%
Very close performance in structured environments. Both excel with agenda-based discussions.
Casual Team Check-ins
86.8% | Sembly.ai. 82.3%
Read.ai handles informal conversations better. Sembly struggles with overlapping speech.
Client/Sales Calls
88.5% | Sembly.ai. 85.9%
Read.ai wins on mixed speaker dynamics. Both handle professional vocabulary well.
Technical/Engineering Meetings
85.1% | Sembly.ai. 86.2%
Sembly.ai slight edge with technical jargon and acronyms.
🔍 Where Each Tool Excels
Read.ai Strengths
- Superior speaker identification (95% vs 88%)
- Better handling of interruptions and cross-talk
- More accurate timestamps
- Consistent performance across platforms
- Better with non-native English speakers
Sembly.ai Strengths
- Excellent technical vocabulary recognition
- Better at capturing numbers and dates
- Superior integration with CRM systems
- More detailed conversation analytics
- Better formatting of structured content
🎧 Audio Quality Impact Testing
Crystal Clear Audio
92.8% | Sembly.ai. 90.4%
Both perform excellently with high-quality audio. Minimal difference.
Good Audio (typical office)
87.9% | Sembly.ai. 85.2%
Read.ai maintains accuracy better with standard audio quality.
Poor Audio (echo, noise)
79.5% | Sembly.ai. 76.8%
Both struggle significantly. Read.ai slightly more robust to noise.
🗣 Speaker Diversity Testing
Native English Speakers
91.2% | Sembly.ai. 88.7%
Read.ai performs better with various regional accents.
Non-Native English Speakers
83.1% | Sembly.ai. 79.3%
Significant advantage to Read.ai with international teams.
Mixed Speaker Groups
88.4% | Sembly.ai. 84.9%
Read.ai handles accent diversity better within single meetings.
⚡ Speed and Processing
Real-time Transcription
- 2-3 second delay average
- 4-5 second delay average
- Read.ai faster for live note-taking
Summary Generation
- 45 seconds post-meeting
- 90 seconds post-meeting
- Read.ai delivers summaries twice as fast
💰 Accuracy vs Cost Analysis
- Free: 5 meetings/month
- Pro: $15/month (unlimited meetings)
- Accuracy per dollar: 5.82 points/$
- Free: 4 meetings/month
- Professional: $10/month (unlimited meetings)
- Accuracy per dollar: 8.47 points/$
Winner: Sembly.ai offers better accuracy-to-cost ratio despite lower overall accuracy.
🔧 Real-World Error Analysis
Common Read.ai Errors
- Occasionally misses short interjections (um, aha)
- Sometimes splits single words into multiple words
- Can struggle with very fast speakers
- Occasionally assigns wrong speaker labels in large groups
Common Sembly.ai Errors
- More frequent with casual contractions
- Struggles with overlapping conversations
- Sometimes adds words that weren not spoken
- Less accurate with industry-specific slang
📈 Accuracy Improvement Over Time
Week 1-2 Results:
- 85.8% (learning user speech patterns)