Pyyan / Compare / GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr vs DeepSeek-OCR vs Mistral OCR
GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr vs DeepSeek-OCR vs Mistral OCR
4 of 5OCR & Document AI · verified 13 Aug 2026
| Specification | GLM-OCR | dots.ocr | DeepSeek-OCR | Mistral OCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Currently the top scorer on document parsing. | Small, multilingual, layout-aware. | Compresses pages into far fewer vision tokens. | A hosted API built for document ingestion. |
| OmniDocBench | 94.6 | ~93 | ~92 | ~92 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Handles | Tables, formulas, handwriting | Layout, 100+ languages | Dense text, tables | Tables, images, equations |
| Licence | Open weights | MIT | MIT | Proprietary |
| Kind | Vision language model | Vision language model | Vision language model | Hosted API |
| Category | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI |
| Official | Zhipu AI ↗ | Xiaohongshu ↗ | DeepSeek ↗ | Mistral AI ↗ |
Highlighted rows are where these differ.
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.
Mistral OCR
- Priced per page
- Returns structured markdown
Best for teams who want no infrastructure.