Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GLM-OCR
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GLM-OCR: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
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 3.1 Flash-Lite vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GLM-OCR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 0.9B | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | 87.34% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | 1.00s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 10 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | 87.9%(87/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | 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