docling vs GLM-OCR

Document parsing and OCR projects compared

docling converts many document and media formats into structured content for downstream workflows. GLM-OCR focuses on recognizing text and layout in document images and PDFs, with hosted and self-hosted inference options.

doclingGLM-OCR
LanguagePythonPython
LicenseMITApache-2.0
Stars68.7k7.5k
Forks5k669
Last analyzedOct 12, 2026Oct 3, 2026

Key differences

  • docling handles formats including office files, HTML, images, and audio; GLM-OCR processes images and PDFs.
  • docling offers exports including Markdown, HTML, WebVTT, and lossless JSON; GLM-OCR returns Markdown and JSON layout details.
  • docling can run locally, including in air-gapped environments; GLM-OCR offers hosted API access or self-hosting with supported inference servers.
  • docling is MIT licensed; GLM-OCR's repository code is Apache-2.0, while its README identifies different licenses for the model and an integrated component.
  • docling has 68.3k stars and 5k forks; GLM-OCR has 7.5k stars and 669 forks.
  • docling supports integrations with LangChain, LlamaIndex, Haystack, and Crew AI; GLM-OCR provides a Flask service and modular components for custom pipelines.

Choose docling if you…

  • need to ingest a broad mix of document and media formats.
  • want local processing, including in air-gapped environments.
  • plan to use integrations with retrieval and AI frameworks.
Read the docling analysis →

Choose GLM-OCR if you…

  • need text and layout recognition focused on images and PDFs.
  • want a choice between hosted API access and self-hosted inference.
  • plan to deploy OCR as a service or customize a pipeline with modular components.
Read the GLM-OCR analysis →

Compare the numbers side by side, or add more projects

This comparison is generated with AI from the OSRepos analyses of both projects. Always check each project's repository and documentation before choosing.