Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-OCR
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-OCR: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
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.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GLM-OCR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 0.9B | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| 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 | 70.15% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.87s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 565 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0060 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | 87.34% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.91s | 1.00s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 323 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0036 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 78.8%(78/99) | 87.9%(87/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 73.3%(22/30) | 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