Pyyan / Compare / Tesseract vs GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr
Tesseract vs GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr
3 of 5OCR & Document AI · verified 13 Aug 2026
| Specification | Tesseract | GLM-OCR | dots.ocr |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | The 1985 engine that ran OCR for a generation. | Currently the top scorer on document parsing. | Small, multilingual, layout-aware. |
| OmniDocBench | ~55 | 94.6 | ~93 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Handles | Clean printed text | Tables, formulas, handwriting | Layout, 100+ languages |
| Licence | Apache 2.0 | Open weights | MIT |
| Kind | Classical engine | Vision language model | Vision language model |
| Category | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI |
| Official | Google ↗ | Zhipu AI ↗ | Xiaohongshu ↗ |
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.
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.