whatmodel.sh / tts / XTTS v2

XTTS v2 is an open-weights text-to-speech model from Coqui, released November 2023. Its published size is 0.482B parameters. Licence: coqui-public-model-license.

Model information sources

· Parameter count ↗

XTTS paper by Coqui (Casanova et al.), which states "XTTS model and checkpoints are publicly available at ... https://huggingface.co/coqui/XTTS-v2/tree/v2.0.2". Value is OUR SUM of the three maker-stated components (13M + 443M + 26M = 482M). The conditioning encoder (Perceiver) and the H/ASP speaker encoder are not given separate counts. If a single stated figure is preferred, the GPT-2 LM alone is 0.443. The paper links tag v2.0.2; the catalogue main revision is the later v2.0.3-era card, same architecture as far as the card says.

30.0±1.8#105 of 118 text-to-speech modelsfrom 28 benchmark results across 13 sources

Score within the Vapi Humanness · Bradley–Terry rating, 2026-09-25 snapshot comparison set only.

$ how it compares

The text-to-speech models ranked either side of XTTS v2, out of 148 with a score.

#modelscorewhereRAMreleased
129Simple-TTS ASAPP Research (Justin Lovelace et al.)31±5comparison only2023-10
130StyleTTS 2 (LibriTTS) Yinghao Aaron Li et al. (Columbia University)30±2local~0.9GB2023-11
131XTTS v2 Coqui30±2local~1.9GB2023-11
132Tortoise TTS v2 Tortoise29±2local~4.5GB2022-04
133Parler-TTS Large v1 Hugging Face (Parler-TTS)29±3local~9.3GB2024-08

see all text-to-speech models · find the ones that fit your machine

$ what it's good at

voice cloning▁·▁▃▁▁▁▁▇█▃▃ #34 of 37 · 12% of its score · 3 tests

Beats StyleTTS 2 (LibriTTS) here, though they rank higher overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
ZS-TTS-Evaluation · English zero-shot cloning (DAPS speakers, FLORES+) · Whisper-large-v3 CER lab0.5% ✎█······█··██ beats 3/3avg 0.0%▇▇▇▇ 9.4%typical
Seed-TTS test-en · Whisper large-v3 WER3.2% ✎▁···▂▃▂▂█▆▄▂ beats 4/35avg 3.6%▇ 1.8%blunt
Seed-TTS test-zh · Paraformer CER2.9% ✎▁·▃▁▁▁▂▃▅█·▂ beats 2/30avg 2.1%▇ 1.3%blunt · small run
other tests25 not in a task · 86% of its score
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Freya-TR-Eval Turkish TTS intelligibility (WER, faster-whisper large-v3, 8 kHz band)3.7% ✎▄··▄··▄···▂█ beats 4/10avg 0.3%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 19%typical
VoiceCraft zero-shot TTS listening test (80) · naturalness MOS3.96 / 5 ✎█········█·█ beats 1/2very easy · avg 4.72 / 5▇▇▇ 8.6%sharp · at its level · small run
ClonEval · LibriSpeech test-clean voice-clone speaker similarity (WavLM)88.8% ✎█·█········█ beats 1/2very easy · avg 97%▇▇▇ 6.7%small run
LibriSpeech test-clean 4-10 s cross-sentence · HuBERT-large WER5.1% ✎█···█··█···█ beats 1/3avg 0.7%▇▇ 6.1%typical
StyleTTS-ZS LibriSpeech-40 listening test · naturalness MOS3.68 / 5 ✎█·█········█ beats 1/2very easy · avg 4.64 / 5▇▇ 5.2%at its level · small run
LibriSpeech test-clean 4-10 s cross-sentence · SIM-o (WavLM-TDCNN)49.3% ✎█··········█ beats 2/3easy · avg 72%▇▇ 4.4%at its level
ZS-TTS-Evaluation · English zero-shot cloning (DAPS, FLORES+) · ECAPA2 speaker similarity lab64.2% ✎█····▄·····▄ beats 3/3easy · avg 80%▇▇ 4.3%at its level
VoiceCraft zero-shot TTS set (250) · speaker similarity (WavLM-TDCNN)47.0% ✎█····█·····█ beats 1/2easy · avg 77%▇▇ 4.2%at its level · small run
17 more tests
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
VoiceCraft zero-shot TTS set (LibriTTS + YouTube, 250) · Whisper medium.en WER3.6% ✎█······█···█ beats 2/2avg 1.0%▇▇ 4.0%small run
RVCBench LibriTTS clean voice cloning · ECAPA speaker similarity45.0% ✎▃·····▂▃▂▃█▆ beats 3/15medium · avg 46%▇ 3.7%blunt · at its level
StyleTTS-ZS LibriSpeech-40 · HuBERT-large WER6.2% ✎██·········█ beats 1/2avg 0.6%▇ 3.6%noisy · small run
SAP voice reconstruction · human BWS reconstruction preference776.1 ✎█▄█····▄··▄▄ beats 0/7avg 995▇ 3.5%typical
StyleTTS-ZS LibriSpeech-40 listening test · speaker-similarity MOS3.74 / 5 ✎█··█·······█ beats 1/2very easy · avg 4.55 / 5▇ 2.6%at its level · small run
Arabic TTS Arena · community blind A/B rating, 2026-09-24 snapshot1014.6 ✎▂▂··▃·█▅···▂ beats 3/12avg 1018▇ 2.1%blunt
balacoon zero-shot TTS · DAPS-celeb · ReDimNet speaker similarity52.9% ✎▄·······█··▄ beats 0/3easy · avg 71%▇ 1.4%blunt · at its level
LibriSpeech test-clean zero-shot TTS · HuBERT-large WER4.2% ✎█·█········█ beats 1/2avg 2.8%▇ 1.4%blunt · small run
balacoon zero-shot TTS · VCTK · ReDimNet speaker similarity57.7% ✎█···█····█·█ beats 0/3easy · avg 74%▇ 1.2%blunt · at its level
CodecMOS-Accent VCTK voice clone · human speaker-similarity MOS (S-SPK-SIM)3.69 / 5 ✎▄▄█·▄▄▄▄▄·▄█ beats 2/11easy · avg 4.20 / 5▇ 1.0%blunt · at its level
CodecMOS-Accent VCTK voice clone · human naturalness MOS (S-NAT)3.84 / 5 ✎█··▄▄██▄·▄▄▄ beats 5/11easy · avg 3.99 / 5▇ 0.9%blunt · at its level
SAP voice reconstruction · TTSDS dual-reference distributional score83.5% ✎▄····▄▄▄▄▄·█ beats 2/7very easy · avg 86%▇ 0.7%blunt
balacoon zero-shot TTS · VCTK · Whisper-large-v3-turbo CER0.8% ✎█····█····██ beats 3/3avg 1.0%▇ 0.5%blunt
balacoon zero-shot TTS · DAPS-celeb · Whisper-large-v3-turbo CER2.8% ✎██········██ beats 3/3avg 4.1%▇ 0.5%blunt
TTSDS v1 · default four-factor score87.3% ✎▂▂····▃·▃▅▂█ beats 11/14very easy · avg 86%▇ 0.3%blunt
SAP voice reconstruction · WER of reconstructed speech (Whisper turbo)17.3% ✎▄▄▄··█▄··▄·▄ beats 4/7avg 17%▇ 0.1%blunt · noisy
RVCBench LibriTTS clean voice cloning · Whisper-medium WER7.0% ✎▂▂▂··▂·▃▃▃█▂ beats 6/15avg 8.6%▇ 0.1%blunt · noisy

$ where to run it

Other ways to run it

version

  1. Run it as published · needs ~1.88 GB · from github.com/idiap
    uv run --python 3.11 --with coqui-tts --with torch --with torchaudio --with torchcodec tts --model_name tts_models/multilingual/multi-dataset/xtts_v2 --text "It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it I'm not going to be silent." --speaker_idx "Ana Florence" --language_idx en --out_path speech.wav --device cpu

Official weights and documentation: huggingface.co/coqui ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Antalia-2 Mini model card (cl… 19%, VoiceCraft: Zero-Shot Speech… 17%, ZS-TTS-Evaluation (Edresson C… 14% and 10 more

Each result implies a score on its own, after adjusting for how hard its test is and who ran it. The score is their weighted average, with a small pull toward the middle for thinly tested models. Each test's weight is its counts column above; here it's added up by who ran the tests. How it works

$ improve this page

Use a short GitHub form or edit the data through a pull request. Every number needs a source; here's which ones we can use.

data updated · sources and licences · json