Kokoro-82M vs Piper
Two open-source models that run fully in your browser — compared on the numbers that matter, with both available to try free so you can hear the difference on your own text.
| Kokoro-82M | Piper | |
|---|---|---|
| Parameters | 82M | 20M |
| Download | 88 MB CPU / 310 MB WebGPU | 27-115 MB per voice |
| Quality rank (of our lineup) | #2 | #5 |
| Speed | ≈ real-time on a modern CPU (WASM); 2–6× faster than real-time with WebGPU. | ≈ 9× faster than real-time on CPU — no GPU needed at all. |
| Voices | 28 | 900 |
| Languages | 2 | 24 |
| Voice cloning | No | No |
| Streaming | Yes | No |
| Hardware | CPU ok, WebGPU faster | Any CPU (WASM) |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT (core) |
| Output | 24.0 kHz | 22.1 kHz |
Which should you choose?
- Kokoro-82M if you want the most natural output and your device meets its requirements (≈ real-time on a modern CPU (WASM); 2–6× faster than real-time with WebGPU.).
- Piper if download size or low-end hardware matters — it needs 27-115 MB per voice and runs on any CPU.
- Piper if you need languages beyond English (24 supported vs 2).
Frequently asked questions
Which sounds better, Kokoro-82M or Piper?
Kokoro-82M ranks higher for naturalness in our lineup. But "better" depends on the job — Piper wins when download size or low-end hardware matters — it needs 27-115 MB per voice and runs on any CPU. Generate the same sentence with each and let your ears decide.
Are these comparisons measured or copied?
Speed and size figures come from the models' published specs and our own in-browser runs; the benchmark page lets you reproduce every number on your own hardware.