LLM Reference
Arabic ASR WERactiveAudio

Arabic ASR WER: Open Universal Arabic ASR Leaderboard (average WER)

Metric: Average WER (%) (lower is better)Introduced: 2024

Average word error rate across the six multi-dialect Arabic ASR test sets used by the Open Universal Arabic ASR Leaderboard: SADA, Common Voice 18.0, MASC clean-test, MASC noisy-test, MGB-2, and Casablanca. Lower is better.

Models ranked

1

tracked on this benchmark

Score band

25.9 – 25.9

best → lowest tracked

Snapshot trend

need ≥2 snapshots

Leaderboard

Tracked models ranked by Average WER (%) (lower is better).

Compare candidates
#Model variant and provenanceScore
1
Cohere Transcribe Arabic (07-2026)
Version: six-test-set average WER; leaderboard snapshot accessed 2026-07-13Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Jul 13, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource

Notes: Variant: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-arabic-07-2026. Evaluator/leaderboard owner: Elm Research Center (Elm Company). Harness: Open Universal Arabic ASR Leaderboard; public Gradio configuration and app.py state that it reports WER/CER and ranks by average WER across SADA, Common Voice 18.0, MASC clean-test, MASC noisy-test, MGB-2, and Casablanca. The public leaderboard config showed 25.87 Average WER for this exact model on access date. Recommended seed value: 25.87. Harness source: https://huggingface.co/spaces/elmresearchcenter/open_universal_arabic_asr_leaderboard/raw/main/app.py

25.9

How to read this benchmark

This benchmark scores models where lower is better. Use scores for directional filtering and shortlisting, not universal quality ranking; then validate pricing, context window, provider availability, and fit for your workload.

Trust this score when

  • There is a fresh timestamped snapshot (or multiple snapshots) for this benchmark.
  • The model list covers the same version family you can actually deploy today.
  • Top candidates overlap with your required routing and feature requirements.

Be cautious when

  • There is only one benchmark snapshot or the dataset appears stale.
  • The benchmark metric direction is opposite of your decision objective.
  • The score difference between options is narrow and likely within implementation variance.

Related benchmarks

Last reviewed: Jul 13, 2026