Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM-OCR
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.1 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 3.1 Pro vs GLM-OCR: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
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 Pro vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GLM-OCR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 0.9B | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | |
| 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 · 66 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 75.76% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.13s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 11 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 44.4%(4/9) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.52% | 87.34% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.11s | 1.00s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 12 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 94.9%(94/99) | 87.9%(87/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 90%(9/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 81.7%(49/60) | 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