← OCR (image → text): all libraries · Reader board

PaddleOCR vs Tesseract: which OCR engine reads more words correctly?

PaddleOCR 3.7.0 and Tesseract 0.3.13 on the same 190 real-world images with known text: 80 receipt photos, 50 document pages and 60 app screenshots from OCR test set (CORD receipts, DocLayNet pages, app screenshots). Measured, not opinion; re-tested by itself on every new PyPI release. Updated 06 November 2026.

More words foundPaddleOCR95.1% vs 67.5%
Faster on this setTesseract53.8 s vs 1,527.6 s total (28× faster)
Both read166only PaddleOCR: 24 · only Tesseract: 0

PaddleOCR found more of the words: 95.1% vs 67.5%. PaddleOCR broke (error, hang or crash) on 0 files that Tesseract read; Tesseract broke on 0 files that PaddleOCR read.

LibraryText from🔴 Fails where
the other reads
🟡 Empty where
the other reads
⏱ Hangs or
crashes
✅ Words
found
Median
ms/file
Total
seconds
PaddleOCR 3.7.019000095.1%30701,527.6
Tesseract 0.3.13166024067.5%13253.8

By kind of image: words found

ImagesPaddleOCRTesseract
documents 50 images91.6%88.2%
receipts 80 images94.8%37.6%
screenshots 60 images98.5%90.0%

Files only PaddleOCR reads (24)

receipts/cord-004.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-014.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-015.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-019.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-020.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-032.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-034.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-038.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-039.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-040.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-042.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-044.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-046.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-056.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-058.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-059.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-064.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-065.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-067.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-072.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-075.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-083.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-089.jpgTesseract: no text
receipts/cord-095.jpgTesseract: no text

Files only Tesseract reads (0)

None.

Don't want to run it yourself? I also run Image & Scanned PDF to Text OCR as a pay-per-use API on Apify (it uses RapidOCR for photos and Tesseract for scans, the split this table supports). Disclosure: that tool is mine; the rankings above come only from the measurements.

What this does not tell you

This compares not breaking: whether each library gets any text out of each file. It does not rank text quality (reading order, tables, headings), and speed is one GitHub-hosted runner, default settings, no OCR switched on. If you need structure for RAG, also look at the output on your own files.

How this is measured