Pyyan / Compare / Tesseract vs GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr vs DeepSeek-OCR
Tesseract vs GLM-OCR vs dots.ocr vs DeepSeek-OCR
4 of 5OCR & Document AI · verified 13 Aug 2026
| Specification | Tesseract | GLM-OCR | dots.ocr | DeepSeek-OCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | The 1985 engine that ran OCR for a generation. | Currently the top scorer on document parsing. | Small, multilingual, layout-aware. | Compresses pages into far fewer vision tokens. |
| OmniDocBench | ~55 | 94.6 | ~93 | ~92 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Handles | Clean printed text | Tables, formulas, handwriting | Layout, 100+ languages | Dense text, tables |
| Licence | Apache 2.0 | Open weights | MIT | MIT |
| Kind | Classical engine | Vision language model | Vision language model | Vision language model |
| Category | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI | OCR & Document AI |
| Official | Google ↗ | Zhipu AI ↗ | Xiaohongshu ↗ | 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.
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.