We use cookies. Cookies and browser storage keep you signed in and remember your preferences. With your permission we also measure how the site is used. You can any time. See our cookie policy.

New here? See how it works A 1-minute tour of the playground, models and your API key.

Fish Audio: Transcribe 1 vs OpenAI: GPT Transcribe

A side-by-side comparison of Fish Audio: Transcribe 1 ($0.02 / minute) and OpenAI: GPT Transcribe ($0.02 / minute) using current USD prices and capabilities from the api14 catalog. Both run through the same OpenAI-compatible API.

Specifications

	Fish Audio: Transcribe 1	OpenAI: GPT Transcribe
Provider	Fish Audio	OpenAI
Audio	$0.02 / minute	$0.02 / minute
Context window	-	-
Max output	-	-
Input	audio	audio
Output	transcription	transcription
Tool calling
Structured output
Reasoning control
Added	Jul 29, 2026	Aug 5, 2026

Key differences

OpenAI: GPT Transcribe is 25% cheaper on input tokens.

In depth

Fish Audio: Transcribe 1 is a transcription model from Fish Audio, listed under the model id fish-audio/transcribe-1. OpenAI: GPT Transcribe is a transcription model from OpenAI, listed under the model id openai/gpt-transcribe. Both sit in the same transcription category on api14, and both were released in the same period, with Fish Audio's entry dated 2026-07-29 and OpenAI's dated 2026-08-05. For a developer, the practical starting point is that these are two competing options for the same job: turning audio into text.

On the facts available, the two models look very similar in shape. Both accept audio as their only input modality and both return transcription as their only output modality. Neither lists a context length, so there is no stated basis for saying one handles longer audio than the other. Neither lists supported parameters, and the comparison data marks tool use, structured output and reasoning as not meaningfully different or unknown, so there is no capability here that one model has and the other lacks. The one qualitative difference given is price on input: OpenAI's model is the cheaper of the two on input. Output pricing is marked as about equal or unknown, so nothing more specific can be said there. In short, this is not a case of one model being more capable than the other on paper; it is a case of two models with the same modality profile and a difference on the input side of the bill.

That shapes how you should choose. If your workload is input heavy, meaning lots of audio minutes relative to the amount of text you get back, the cheaper input side on openai/gpt-transcribe is the reason to lean that way. If your workload is closer to balanced, or if you simply prefer the Fish Audio model for your own reasons, fish-audio/transcribe-1 remains a reasonable pick, since the two are otherwise comparable on the dimensions listed here. Because no context length is published for either, do not assume one will accept a longer file than the other; test with your own audio lengths before committing. Likewise, since neither lists supported parameters, do not build around tunable options such as temperature or language hints for either model without verifying first.

Calling either one through api14 works the same way, because the gateway exposes an OpenAI-compatible API. You point your client at the same base URL, send the same request shape with the audio you want transcribed, and change only the model id in the request body: use fish-audio/transcribe-1 for the Fish Audio model, or openai/gpt-transcribe for the OpenAI model. Your authentication, retry logic, streaming handling and response parsing stay as they are. That makes switching between them a one line change, which is useful when you want to compare output quality on your own audio or move traffic if pricing shifts.

There is no strong case in the data for saying one model is the better pick on quality grounds, since no benchmark, score or ranking is given for either. The honest position is that the choice comes down to price on input, where OpenAI's model is cheaper, and to your own evaluation of the transcripts each produces on your audio. Run a sample of your real recordings through both ids, compare the text, and let that decide.

Switch with one string

Both models use the same endpoint and request shape. Change the model value from "fish-audio/transcribe-1" to "openai/gpt-transcribe" and prompts, streaming and tools keep working.

Fish Audio: Transcribe 1 details & playground →OpenAI: GPT Transcribe details & playground →

import fs from "node:fs";
import OpenAI from "openai";

const client = new OpenAI({
  baseURL: "https://api14.com/api/v1",
  apiKey: process.env.API14_API_KEY,
});

const result = await client.audio.transcriptions.create({
  model: "openai/gpt-transcribe",
  file: fs.createReadStream("audio.mp3"),
});
console.log(result.text);

More comparisons

Transcribe 1 vs GPT Transcribe: API price, context & features · api14