Back to Voice & realtime

Model comparison

GPT-Live 1 vs Eleven v3 Conversational

Compare GPT-Live 1 and Eleven v3 Conversational using the same provider-sourced voice & realtime rubric. No mystery score and no invented benchmark ranking.

Facts checked September 11, 2026

Quick take

GPT-Live 1

OpenAI's full-duplex voice frontend for natural conversation that delegates deeper reasoning and actions to a separate backend agent.

Best for

  • Natural customer-service and scheduling calls
  • Voice interfaces that must keep talking while work runs
  • Teams that want to choose or operate the backend agent

Watch out for

Speech interruption does not automatically cancel backend work. Your application still owns permissions, confirmations, cancellation, durable task state, result validation, and playback safeguards.

Eleven v3 Conversational

ElevenLabs' expressive realtime text-to-speech model for natural dialogue, emotional delivery, audio tags, and more than 70 languages.

Best for

  • Expressive support and assistant voices
  • Multilingual interactive characters
  • Agent stacks that already supply reasoning and tools

Watch out for

It is not a complete speech-to-speech agent by itself. End-to-end latency also includes transcription, LLM response time, transport, and playback.

Compare the published facts

GPT-Live 1 vs Eleven v3 Conversational

Values use each provider's own published units and limits. A blank means the provider did not publish a directly comparable value in the sources reviewed.

Voice & realtimeGPT-Live 1Eleven v3 Conversational
Price basisToken-, character-, or minute-based price for the listed access route.$0.05 / voice minute + backend usage$0.05 / 1K characters
Interaction modeSpeech-to-speech, audio-to-audio, or streamed text-to-speech behavior.Full-duplex voice frontend with delegated backendRealtime text-to-speech / text-to-dialogue
Published latencyProvider-published measurement with its stated exclusions; not a Cody test.Not published~280ms, excluding app/network
LanguagesProvider-documented language coverage or a clear unpublished marker.Multiple accents, dialects, and languages; exact list not published70+ languages
Tools & controlNative function calling, reasoning, or speech-control features.Responses or client delegation to backend agents and toolsAudio tags; orchestration handled by your agent stack
Context or input limitDocumented token or character limit where it is meaningful.Not published5K-character guidance for v3 family; verify endpoint

How to choose

Compare the job, not the hype.

Start with the job you need to complete, then validate cost, access, and policy details on your exact provider route.

GPT-Live 1

OpenAI says API content is not used for training by default. Default abuse-monitoring logs may be retained up to 30 days, with additional controls available to qualifying organizations.

Eleven v3 Conversational

ElevenLabs says enterprise customer data is not used for training by default. Other users can opt out of model improvement; enterprise zero-retention and regional environments are available with plan-specific limits.

Frequently asked questions

GPT-Live 1 vs Eleven v3 Conversational FAQ

What is the main difference between GPT-Live 1 and Eleven v3 Conversational?

GPT-Live 1: OpenAI's full-duplex voice frontend for natural conversation that delegates deeper reasoning and actions to a separate backend agent. Eleven v3 Conversational: ElevenLabs' expressive realtime text-to-speech model for natural dialogue, emotional delivery, audio tags, and more than 70 languages.

Should I choose GPT-Live 1 or Eleven v3 Conversational?

Consider GPT-Live 1 when your priority is Natural customer-service and scheduling calls. Consider Eleven v3 Conversational when your priority is Expressive support and assistant voices. Test both with your own data and provider route before committing.

Is this GPT-Live 1 vs Eleven v3 Conversational comparison based on Cody benchmarks?

No. This comparison aligns provider-published facts for the Voice & realtime category. It does not claim a universal winner or combine incompatible third-party benchmark scores.