Pyyan / Compare / Cohere Parse 5 vs GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr vs DeepSeek-OCR
Cohere Parse 5 vs GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr vs DeepSeek-OCR
4 of 5OCR & Document AI · verified 2 Sept 2026
| Specification | Cohere Parse 5 | GLM-OCR | dots.ocr | DeepSeek-OCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Loses the benchmark, wins the invoice. $1.50 per thousand pages. | Currently the top scorer on document parsing. | Small, multilingual, layout-aware. | Compresses pages into far fewer vision tokens. |
| OmniDocBench | 79.2 on ParseBench | 94.6 | ~93 | ~92 |
| Open weights | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Handles | Tables as HTML, forms, diagrams, bounding boxes | Tables, formulas, handwriting | Layout, 100+ languages | Dense text, tables |
| Licence | Proprietary | Open weights | MIT | MIT |
| Kind | Vision language model, 2.3B | Vision language model | Vision language model | Vision language model |
| Category | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI |
| Official | — | Zhipu AI ↗ | Xiaohongshu ↗ | DeepSeek ↗ |
Highlighted rows are where these differ.
Cohere Parse 5
- 2.3B vision language model, about 4.6GB, that turns a page into clean Markdown
- Scores 79.2 on Cohere's ParseBench, behind GPT-5.5 at 84.4 and Opus 4.8 at 84.3
- $1.50 per thousand pages at 4.5 pages a second, which is where it actually wins
Best for documents at volume.
GLM-OCR
- Ahead of Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5.2 on the same benchmark
- 94.0 on OCRBench
Best for complex documents end to end.
dots.ocr
- Layout and content in one pass
- Strong for its size
Best for multilingual layout parsing.
DeepSeek-OCR
- Treats the page image as compressed context
- Notable for cost per page rather than raw accuracy
Best for long documents on a budget.