All tasks / Comparisons

GLM-OCR vs PaddleOCR-VL-1.6

Compared only on public benchmark results, across the 1 task where both are listed: they share a tier in 1.

GLM-OCR

Z.ai's open-weights ~1B multimodal OCR model (MIT) for parsing document text, tables and formulas.

Vendor
Z.ai
Weights
Open: run it yourself
Released
30 Jan 2026
GPU memory to run locally
~5 GB
License
MIT
Last verified
18 Oct 2026

Alternatives to GLM-OCR

PaddleOCR-VL-1.6

Baidu's open-weights 0.9B vision-language model for page-level document parsing of text, tables and formulas.

Vendor
Baidu (PaddlePaddle)
Weights
Open: run it yourself
Released
28 May 2026
GPU memory to run locally
~4 GB
License
Apache-2.0
Last verified
18 Oct 2026

Alternatives to PaddleOCR-VL-1.6

Task by task

TaskGLM-OCRPaddleOCR-VL-1.6Higher tier
Documents & OCR
Models
S95 on OmniDocBench v1.6 (end-to-end, v1.6_full) · LocalS96 on OmniDocBench v1.6 (end-to-end, v1.6_full) · LocalSame tier

A tier spans a range of scores, and small gaps on a leaderboard are often within its margin of error, so only a different tier counts as ahead. How we rank.

Same benchmark, both results

BenchmarkGLM-OCRPaddleOCR-VL-1.6Snapshot
MDPBench (multilingual document parsing)
Overall: page-level mean of text, formula and table parsing scores on the public split (3,400 images, 17 languages, digital and photographed pages), higher is better
67.3%78.9%4 Oct 2026
OmniDocBench v1.6 (end-to-end, v1.6_full)
Overall page-parsing score: ((1 − text edit distance) × 100 + table TEDS + formula CDM) / 3, higher is better
959611 Sep 2026
ParseBench (models)
Overall: mean of five rule-based dimension scores (tables, charts, content faithfulness, semantic formatting, visual grounding) on ~2,000 human-verified enterprise pages, higher is better
29.6%67.4%9 Oct 2026