Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs docTR
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and docTR side-by-side.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs docTR live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs docTR: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.5, released by Anthropic in September 2025, is the company’s most advanced Sonnet-series model, built for high-performance reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic workflows. It is a multimodal system that accepts both text and images, with a 200,000-token context window designed for handling large documents and extended interactions. Anthropic highlights its improvements in reliability, reduced sycophancy, and alignment, making it suitable for sustained enterprise use.
The model delivers strong results in coding and autonomous workflows, achieving 61.4% on the OSWorld benchmark and leading performance on SWE-bench Verified. It introduces infrastructure features such as a memory tool (beta), checkpointing for Claude Code, parallel tool use, and tighter integration with VS Code. Compared to Opus, which targets broader reasoning, Sonnet 4.5 is optimized for structured, long-duration tasks. Positioned against leading offerings from OpenAI and Google, it is aimed at enterprise automation, software engineering, and research-intensive applications.
docTR (Document Text Recognition) is an open-source OCR toolkit developed by Mindee, with its initial public release in March 2021 under the Apache 2.0 license. It provides end-to-end document text recognition through a two-stage pipeline consisting of text detection and text recognition, both implemented as deep learning models. docTR supports multiple detection architectures including DBNet and LinkNet, and recognition architectures including CRNN and SAR, with both TensorFlow and PyTorch backends available.
docTR is designed for reading text in document images including scanned PDFs, photographs of printed documents, and forms. It handles multilingual text recognition across standard Latin-script languages and is deployable through Roboflow Inference. It is suited for document digitization pipelines, automated form processing, and applications requiring accurate structured text extraction from document images.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs docTR Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | docTR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Mindee |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | vision |
| Release Date | Sep 2025 | Feb 2021 |
| Context Window | 200K | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | |
| Avg Response Time | 5.67s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 182 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0092 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 67.25% | |
| Avg Response Time | 3.93s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | |
| Median output tokens | 115 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0039 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 71.7%(71/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 53.3%(16/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
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