| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Processes audio input directly through Ultravox v0.7 speech model without intermediate ASR-to-text-to-LLM pipeline, preserving tone, cadence, pitch, and other paralinguistic signals in the inference process. The model operates on raw audio features rather than transcribed text, enabling sub-600ms response times while maintaining semantic understanding of emotional and contextual vocal cues.
Unique: Direct audio-to-meaning inference without ASR transcription step, preserving paralinguistic signals (tone, cadence, pitch) that are lost in traditional speech-to-text-to-LLM pipelines. Achieves ~600ms response time vs 1200-2400ms for GPT-4 Realtime, Gemini Live, and Claude Sonnet by eliminating intermediate text conversion.
vs alternatives: Faster response times (600ms vs 1200-2400ms) and better emotional/contextual understanding than GPT-4 Realtime, Gemini Live, or Claude Sonnet because it processes audio natively rather than converting to text first.
Manages full-duplex audio streams where voice input and output occur simultaneously, with infrastructure supporting configurable concurrency limits per pricing tier (5 concurrent calls on free tier, unlimited on Pro). Uses dedicated cloud infrastructure managed by Ultravox rather than shared inference pools, enabling predictable latency and resource allocation for production voice applications.
Unique: Dedicated infrastructure with per-tier concurrency guarantees (5 free, unlimited Pro) rather than shared inference pools. Eliminates contention and latency variance by isolating customer workloads on purpose-built infrastructure managed by Ultravox.
vs alternatives: Predictable concurrency and latency vs cloud LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic) which use shared inference pools and offer no concurrency guarantees or per-tier limits.
Generates natural voice output from text or model responses using built-in TTS included in per-minute pricing. The TTS is integrated into the agent response pipeline, enabling end-to-end voice conversations without external TTS service dependencies. Specific voice options, quality tiers, or language support not documented.
Unique: TTS bundled into per-minute pricing model rather than charged separately, eliminating cost uncertainty and integration overhead. Integrated into response pipeline for lower latency than external TTS services.
vs alternatives: Simpler integration and lower latency than using separate TTS services (Google Cloud TTS, AWS Polly, ElevenLabs) because no external API call required; included in Ultravox pricing.
Provides native integrations with major telephony providers for inbound/outbound call handling, enabling voice agents to be deployed as phone numbers without custom telephony infrastructure. Specific supported providers not documented, but platform claims 'built-in integrations with largest telephony providers.' Integration likely handles call setup, audio routing, and call termination through provider APIs.
Unique: Built-in telephony integrations eliminate need for separate telephony platform (Twilio, Vonage) or custom SIP handling. Abstracts provider-specific call setup and audio routing behind unified API.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom Twilio/Vonage integrations because telephony is pre-integrated; no need to manage separate telephony provider accounts or handle SIP/RTP protocols.
Exposes REST API endpoints for programmatic agent control and integration, with SDKs available for 'every major platform across web + mobile' (specific languages/platforms not documented). Enables developers to build custom applications, dashboards, and integrations on top of Ultravox voice agents without direct API calls.
Unique: Multi-platform SDKs (web, mobile, backend) provided out-of-box rather than requiring developers to build custom HTTP clients. Abstracts API details behind language-specific interfaces.
vs alternatives: More developer-friendly than raw REST API because SDKs handle serialization, authentication, and error handling; reduces boilerplate compared to direct HTTP calls.
Charges for voice agent usage based on conversation duration (per-minute) rather than per-call or per-token, with pricing including both inference and TTS costs. Free tier offers 5 concurrent calls at $0.05/minute; Pro tier ($100/month billed yearly) provides unlimited concurrency. Pricing model is transparent and predictable, enabling cost forecasting based on conversation duration.
Unique: Per-minute pricing includes both inference and TTS in single metric, eliminating hidden costs from separate TTS charges. Transparent tier-based concurrency (5 free, unlimited Pro) enables clear cost/capacity tradeoff.
vs alternatives: More predictable than token-based pricing (OpenAI, Anthropic) because cost is tied to conversation duration, not token count; simpler than per-call pricing because long conversations don't incur multiple charges.
Runs Ultravox v0.7 speech model on dedicated cloud infrastructure managed by Ultravox, eliminating dependency on external LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) and shared inference pools. Enables predictable latency (~600ms response time) and guaranteed availability without contention from other users. Infrastructure is purpose-built for speech processing rather than general-purpose LLM inference.
Unique: Dedicated infrastructure with no external LLM dependencies eliminates latency variance from shared inference pools and API rate limits. Purpose-built for speech processing rather than general-purpose LLM inference.
vs alternatives: More predictable latency than OpenAI Realtime API or Anthropic Claude because infrastructure is dedicated and optimized for speech, not shared with other customers; no external API dependencies means no rate limiting or quota contention.
Maintains conversation state across multiple turns of interaction, enabling agents to reference previous messages and build context over time. Implementation details (context window size, session storage, memory limits) not documented, but platform positions itself as handling 'complex interactions' with context preservation.
Unique: Context management integrated into speech model rather than requiring separate context retrieval or memory system. Preserves paralinguistic context (tone, emotion) across turns, not just semantic content.
vs alternatives: Better emotional/contextual understanding across turns than text-based systems because paralinguistic signals are preserved; simpler than building custom context management on top of stateless LLM APIs.
+2 more capabilities
Manages conversation history as immutable thread objects stored server-side, where each message appends to a thread rather than requiring clients to maintain conversation state. Threads persist across API calls and sessions, enabling stateless client implementations. The architecture decouples conversation management from model invocation, allowing assistants to be reused across multiple independent threads without state collision.
Unique: Server-side thread abstraction eliminates client-side conversation state management; threads are first-class API objects with immutable append-only semantics, not just message arrays. This differs from stateless LLM APIs where clients must manage context windows and history truncation.
vs alternatives: Eliminates context window management burden compared to raw LLM APIs (e.g., Claude API, GPT-4 completions), but adds latency and cost overhead vs. in-memory conversation state in frameworks like LangChain
Provides a managed Python 3.11 execution environment accessible via the Code Interpreter tool, where assistants can write and execute arbitrary Python code with access to common libraries (pandas, numpy, matplotlib, scikit-learn). Code runs in isolated sandboxes with file I/O, plotting, and data visualization capabilities. Execution results (stdout, stderr, generated files) are returned to the assistant for further processing.
Unique: Managed Python sandbox integrated directly into the agent loop — assistants can iteratively write, execute, and refine code without external compute provisioning. Execution results feed back into the LLM context, enabling self-correcting workflows. Differs from Replit or Jupyter APIs which require explicit session management.
vs alternatives: Simpler than provisioning Jupyter kernels or Lambda functions for code execution, but slower and less flexible than local Python execution; better for lightweight analysis than heavy ML workloads
OpenAI Assistants scores higher at 76/100 vs Fixie AI at 56/100. However, Fixie AI offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
When an assistant calls a tool, the run enters a 'requires_action' state. Clients must submit tool call results via the submit_tool_outputs API, which resumes the run with the tool results injected into context. This enables iterative workflows where assistants can call tools, receive results, and refine responses based on results. Tool results are stored in the thread and visible to subsequent runs, enabling multi-turn tool-assisted reasoning.
Unique: Tool results are submitted explicitly via API, not returned in-band — enables clients to process, validate, or transform results before injection. Runs pause in 'requires_action' state, giving clients full control over tool execution and result handling.
vs alternatives: More flexible than automatic tool execution (clients can implement custom logic), but requires more client-side code than frameworks like LangChain where tool execution is automatic; enables external tool integration without modifying assistant code
Assistants can be created from scratch or cloned from existing assistants, copying all configuration (instructions, tools, model, file attachments). Cloning enables template-based assistant creation where a base assistant is configured once and then cloned for different use cases or users. Cloned assistants are independent — changes to one don't affect others. This reduces setup overhead for creating similar assistants.
Unique: Assistants are cloneable objects — configuration can be copied to create new assistants without manual setup. Enables template-based assistant creation and multi-tenant provisioning patterns.
vs alternatives: Simpler than manually creating assistants with identical configuration, but less flexible than parameterized templates; no built-in versioning or rollback compared to infrastructure-as-code approaches
Files uploaded to assistants are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and associated with assistants or threads. Files can be deleted explicitly via API, and OpenAI automatically cleans up files after 30 days of inactivity. File storage is charged per file per assistant; deleting unused files reduces costs. Files can be reused across multiple assistants and threads, but each association incurs a separate storage charge.
Unique: Files are managed server-side with automatic cleanup after 30 days — no manual file system management required. Files are associated with assistants and charged per association, enabling cost tracking at the file level.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files in external storage (S3, GCS), but less flexible and more expensive for high-volume file usage; automatic cleanup reduces manual maintenance but limits retention control
The File Search tool indexes uploaded files (PDFs, text, code) using OpenAI's embedding model and enables assistants to retrieve relevant passages via semantic search. Files are chunked, embedded, and stored in a managed vector index. When an assistant queries the index, it retrieves the most relevant chunks based on cosine similarity, then includes them in the prompt context. This enables RAG-style retrieval without managing embeddings or vector databases.
Unique: Fully managed vector indexing and retrieval without exposing embedding or vector database layers — files are indexed automatically on upload, and search is invoked implicitly when assistants reference file_search tool. Abstracts away Pinecone/Weaviate setup but sacrifices control over chunking and embedding strategies.
vs alternatives: Faster to implement than building custom RAG with LangChain + Pinecone, but less flexible; no control over chunk size, embedding model, or retrieval parameters compared to self-managed vector databases
Assistants can invoke multiple tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, custom functions) in parallel or sequence based on task requirements. Tool calls are defined via JSON schema (OpenAI function calling format), and the assistant decides which tools to invoke and in what order. Results from tool calls are fed back into the assistant's context, enabling iterative refinement. Supports both parallel execution (multiple tools called simultaneously) and sequential chaining (tool output feeds into next tool's input).
Unique: Tool invocation is driven by the LLM's reasoning — the assistant decides which tools to call, in what order, and with what parameters based on task context. Supports both parallel and sequential execution patterns. Differs from static tool pipelines (e.g., Zapier) where execution order is pre-defined.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded tool chains, but less predictable than explicit DAGs; requires careful prompt engineering to ensure correct tool selection vs. frameworks like LangChain where tool routing can be more explicit
Assistants can receive file attachments (PDFs, images, code, data files) within messages, which are automatically indexed and made available for retrieval or analysis. Files are stored in OpenAI's managed file storage and can be referenced by subsequent messages in the thread. The assistant can analyze file content via Code Interpreter, search file content via File Search, or reference files in function calls. Files persist within a thread and are accessible across multiple turns.
Unique: Files are first-class message attachments with automatic indexing and managed storage — no separate file management API required. Files persist in thread context and are automatically made available to all tools (Code Interpreter, File Search, function calls) without explicit routing.
vs alternatives: Simpler than managing files separately and passing file paths to tools; automatic indexing reduces setup vs. manual chunking and embedding, but less control over file processing compared to custom pipelines
+5 more capabilities