1 min readfrom Machine Learning

We benchmarked 18 LLMs on OCR (7k+ calls) — cheaper/old models oftentimes win. Full dataset + framework open-sourced. [R]

TLDR; We were overpaying for OCR, so we compared flagship models with cheaper and older models. New mini-bench + leaderboard. Free tool to test your own documents. Open Source.

We’ve been looking at OCR / document extraction workflows and kept seeing the same pattern:

Too many teams are either stuck in legacy OCR pipelines, or are overpaying badly for LLM calls by defaulting to the newest/ biggest model.

We put together a curated set of 42 standard documents and ran every model 10 times under identical conditions; 7,560 total calls. Main takeaway: for standard OCR, smaller and older models match premium accuracy at a fraction of the cost.

We track pass^n (reliability at scale), cost-per-success, latency, and critical field accuracy.

Everything is open source: https://github.com/ArbitrHq/ocr-mini-bench

Leaderboard: https://arbitrhq.ai/leaderboards/

Curious whether this matches what others here are seeing.

submitted by /u/TimoKerre
[link] [comments]

Want to read more?

Check out the full article on the original site

View original article

Tagged with

#natural language processing for spreadsheets
#generative AI for data analysis
#rows.com
#Excel alternatives for data analysis
#financial modeling with spreadsheets
#automation in spreadsheet workflows
#large dataset processing
#OCR
#LLMs
#open source
#leaderboard
#benchmark
#document extraction
#mini-bench
#legacy pipelines
#standard documents
#cost-per-success
#reliability at scale
#curated set
#latency
We benchmarked 18 LLMs on OCR (7k+ calls) — cheaper/old models oftentimes win. Full dataset + framework open-sourced. [R]