Roboflow

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-OCR

Compare Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.

Compare Claude Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6
Run to compare this model.
Z.aiGLM-OCR
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GLM-OCR: Overview

Claude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6 is the flagship large language model from Anthropic, released on 2026-02-05 for advanced reasoning, complex coding, and enterprise agent workflows. It supports text and image inputs via API, offers a 200K-token standard context window with a 1M-token beta option, and enables outputs up to 128K tokens, with adaptive reasoning and context compaction for sustained tasks.

As of 2026-02-17, Anthropic also released Claude Sonnet 4.6, extending the 1M-token context window to a broader tier. Opus remains positioned for maximum depth and benchmark performance, while Sonnet 4.6 brings long-context capability to more cost- and latency-sensitive production use cases.

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 Opus 4.6 vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table

PropertyClaude Opus 4.6 GLM-OCR
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateFeb 2026Mar 2026
Context Window1.0M
Parameters0.9B
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00
Output $/1M$25.00
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
64.18%
Avg Response Time23.35s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2.2K
Median output tokens130
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.014
Defect Detection
73.3%(11/15)
Document Understanding
77.8%(7/9)
Object Counting
20%(2/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
68.4%(13/19)
OCR
Overall Score
82.53%
87.34%
Avg Response Time5.05s1.00s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens736
Median output tokens99
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0062
Focused Scene OCR
85.9%(85/99)
87.9%(87/99)
Handwritten Math
70%(7/10)
100%(10/10)
License Plate Recognition
90%(27/30)
90%(27/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
90%(27/30)
VQA & Extraction
76.7%(46/60)
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