Comparison
CrazyOCR vs Traditional OCR
AI-powered vision-language models outperform rule-based engines in every benchmark. Here's the data.
Benchmarks based on public datasets: FUNSD, SROIE, ICDAR 2019, DocVQA. March 2026.
Recognition Accuracy (%)
| Benchmark | CrazyOCR | Tesseract 5 | Google Vision | ABBYY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Printed Text Accuracy | 99.2% | 85.4% | 97.8% | 98.5% |
| Handwriting Accuracy | 91.7% | 42.3% | 78.9% | 82.1% |
| Table Recognition | 96.8% | 31.2% | 89.4% | 93.7% |
| Multi-column Layout | 95.3% | 28.6% | 82.1% | 79.4% |
| CJK Language (JP/CN/KR) | 97.1% | 62.8% | 91.3% | 88.6% |
| Math Formula (LaTeX) | 93.5% | 11.4% | 67.2% | 71.8% |
| Low-quality Scan (150dpi) | 91.2% | 51.7% | 79.3% | 76.5% |
| Document with Watermark | 94.8% | 38.9% | 72.4% | 68.2% |
Feature Comparison
Model Architecture
Traditional OCR
Rule-based + LSTM
CrazyOCR
Vision-Language Model (VLM)
Training Data
Traditional OCR
Synthetic fonts + limited real data
CrazyOCR
100M+ multilingual documents
Layout Understanding
Traditional OCR
Heuristic bounding boxes
CrazyOCR
Semantic layout analysis
Languages Supported
Traditional OCR
~50 languages (varies)
CrazyOCR
100+ languages
Processing Speed
Traditional OCR
30-120 seconds
CrazyOCR
2-15 seconds
Export Formats
Traditional OCR
TXT, HOCR (limited)
CrazyOCR
TXT, MD, JSON, CSV, DOCX
Price (10 OCR requests/mo)
Traditional OCR
$30-60/month (avg)
CrazyOCR
Free