Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-OCR
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.
Compare Claude Sonnet 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-OCR: 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.
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 Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-OCR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | — |
| Parameters | 0.9B | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| 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 | 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% | 87.34% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.93s | 1.00s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | |
| Median output tokens | 115 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0039 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 71.7%(71/99) | 87.9%(87/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 53.3%(16/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | 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