PyyanThe AI Index

Pyyan / Compare / Tesseract vs dots.ocr vs Qwen3-VL vs DeepSeek-OCR

Tesseract vs dots.ocr vs Qwen3-VL vs DeepSeek-OCR

4 of 5

OCR & Document AI · verified 13 Aug 2026

×TesseractGooglecurrent
×dots.ocrXiaohongshucurrent
×Qwen3-VLAlibabacurrent
×DeepSeek-OCRDeepSeekcurrent
1 slot left
SpecificationTesseractdots.ocrQwen3-VLDeepSeek-OCR
SummaryThe 1985 engine that ran OCR for a generation.Small, multilingual, layout-aware.A general vision model that happens to lead OCR benchmarks.Compresses pages into far fewer vision tokens.
OmniDocBench~55~93~93~92
Open weightsYesYesYesYes
HandlesClean printed textLayout, 100+ languagesDocuments, charts, videoDense text, tables
LicenceApache 2.0MITApache 2.0MIT
KindClassical engineVision language modelVision language modelVision language model
CategoryOCR & Document AIOCR & Document AIOCR & Document AIOCR & Document AI
OfficialGoogle ↗Xiaohongshu ↗Alibaba ↗DeepSeek ↗

Highlighted rows are where these differ.

Tesseract

  • Included here as the baseline everything is measured against
  • Struggles badly with layout, tables and anything skewed

Best for clean scans, and nothing else.

Full spec sheet →

dots.ocr

  • Layout and content in one pass
  • Strong for its size

Best for multilingual layout parsing.

Full spec sheet →

Qwen3-VL

  • Not an OCR model, and beats most of them
  • Sizes from 2B to 235B

Best for one model for vision and documents.

Full spec sheet →

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.

Full spec sheet →