Roboflow

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-OCR

Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.

Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-OCR live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM-OCR
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-OCR: Overview

Claude Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5 is Anthropic’s lightweight model in the Claude 4.5 series, released in October 2025 under a proprietary license. Designed for speed and cost efficiency, it delivers near-frontier performance while maintaining Anthropic’s AI Safety Level 2 standard. Haiku 4.5 supports both text and multimodal (text and image) inputs, integrates tool use and extended reasoning, and features a 200,000 token context window, making it adept at handling long or complex workflows. Though the parameter count remains undisclosed, it achieves about 73.3% on SWE-bench Verified, reflecting strong coding and reasoning ability. Haiku 4.5 is ideal for developers and researchers seeking rapid, cost-effective model calls for analysis, coding, or multimodal understanding.

GLM-OCR

GLM-OCR is a multimodal OCR model for complex document understanding, built on the GLM-V encoder-decoder architecture by Zhipu AI. The model combines a 0.4B-parameter CogViT visual encoder pre-trained on large-scale image-text data, a lightweight cross-modal connector with efficient token downsampling, and a 0.5B-parameter GLM language decoder, totaling 0.9B parameters. To address the inefficiency of standard autoregressive decoding in deterministic OCR tasks, GLM-OCR introduces a Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) mechanism that predicts multiple tokens per step, significantly improving decoding throughput while keeping memory overhead low through shared parameters. Training proceeds through four stages: visual encoder pretraining with MIM, CLIP, and distillation objectives; vision-language pretraining on document parsing, grounding, and VQA data; supervised fine-tuning on curated OCR datasets covering text, formula, table, and key information extraction; and full-task reinforcement learning to improve accuracy and structural consistency.

At the system level, GLM-OCR adopts a two-stage pipeline in which PP-DocLayout-V3 first performs layout analysis, followed by parallel region-level recognition. This design enables robust handling of diverse document layouts including tables, formulas, and multi-column text. The model supports document parsing and targeted recognition tasks, producing structured outputs in Markdown, JSON, and LaTeX formats across more than 100 languages. On the OmniDocBench V1.5 benchmark, GLM-OCR scores 94.62, and achieves 94.0 on OCRBench and 96.5 on UniMERNet for formula recognition.

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table

PropertyClaude Haiku 4.5GLM-OCR
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2025Mar 2026
Context Window200K
Parameters0.9B
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.00
Output $/1M$5.00
Vision Tasks
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Foundation Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Visual Understanding
Overall Score
58.21%
Avg Response Time3.15s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2.2K
Median output tokens174
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0030
Defect Detection
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
77.8%(7/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
52.6%(10/19)
OCR
Overall Score
61.57%
87.34%
Avg Response Time2.13s1.00s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens735
Median output tokens101
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0012
Focused Scene OCR
61.6%(61/99)
87.9%(87/99)
Handwritten Math
20%(2/10)
100%(10/10)
License Plate Recognition
66.7%(20/30)
90%(27/30)
Text Recognition
63.3%(19/30)
90%(27/30)
VQA & Extraction
65%(39/60)
81.7%(49/60)

Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology