Part of Best LLM for Structured Data Extraction
Best LLM for Document Parsing
Gemini 3.8 Flash is the provisional first pick for Document Parsing as of October 20, 2026, while independent task measurements are still limited.[1][2][3] It ranks #2 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1316), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images. Gemini 3.7 Flash scores within two points, so read the top two as close rather than as a measured gap. Gemini 3.7 Flash is the next-ranked alternative. Ranks #4 on LMArena's vision arena and #5 on OCR, with strong general vision capabilities but slightly behind its sibling on text extraction specifically.
- Best open-weight pick: GLM 5.3 Flash (#7)
- Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash →
About this recommendation
- Updated
- Evidence through
- Sources
- 11
- Revision
- v105
Decision audit
Why this result
Inspect the inputs and the computed order behind the recommendation.
Models screened
24
live candidates
Evaluation feeds
5
task-weighted
Winner coverage
37%
intended feed weight
Largest provider share
3 of 8
Google: Gemini 3.8 Flash leads the measured task comparison with limited independent task measurements. Community volume, release age and usage popularity add no ranking points. The leading scores are close under this policy.
Real-world track record is still developing. The recommendation can lead on independent measurements while practitioner reports accumulate.
Sources evaluated
These are the weights used in scoring. Missing measurements are omitted from each model’s average. A feed with no result for any model released in the last 60 days is stale and does not score until it catches up.
| Evaluation feed | Weight | Winner result | Field measured |
|---|---|---|---|
| VLMEvalKit tasksdisabled; last successful check unknownunavailable | 0% | feed unavailable | 0/24 |
| LMArena Document | 36% | not measured | 7/24 |
| LMArena Vision OCRObserved 2026-10-19 · evaluation date not supplied · high effort | 36% | #2 | 24/24 |
| LMArena VisionObserved 2026-10-19 · evaluation date not supplied · high effort | 27% | #8 | 24/24 |
| Structured-output evaldisabled; last successful check unknownunavailable | 0% | feed unavailable | 0/24 |
Provider concentration
Each exact model is scored separately; provider identity is not a ranking input.
- Google3 models
- Anthropic2 models
- Meta1 model
- OpenAI1 model
- Z.ai1 model
Decision table
Every published model is shown in computed order. Practitioner sources are distinct community threads, not the citations repeated in the prose below.
Google · coverage 37% · provisional evidence
#2 LMArena Vision OCR · #8 LMArena Vision
Google · coverage 37% · close score · provisional evidence
#4 LMArena Vision · #5 LMArena Vision OCR
Meta · coverage 37% · provisional evidence
#6 LMArena Vision · #6 LMArena Vision OCR
Anthropic · coverage 58% · provisional evidence
#2 LMArena Document · #10 LMArena Vision
Anthropic · coverage 37% · provisional evidence
#6 LMArena Vision · #8 LMArena Vision OCR
OpenAI · coverage 37% · provisional evidence
#5 LMArena Vision · #15 LMArena Vision OCR
Z.ai · coverage 37% · provisional evidence
#24 LMArena Vision · #25 LMArena Vision OCR
Google · coverage 37% · provisional evidence
#26 LMArena Vision · #26 LMArena Vision OCR
Task score averages the available, task-weighted measurements. Benchmark positions compare models matched to our catalog. Models measured by at least two independent evaluator families are considered first. Missing tests, practitioner report counts, popularity and release age add no points. Coverage describes evidence breadth, not a probability of correctness. Scores within two points are shown as close under this policy; this is not a statistical confidence interval. When the leading scores are that close, the model measured by more evaluator families ranks first.
- 01
Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle · $0.83 in / $4.13 out per M tokens · 1.0M context
Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks #2 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1316), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.
Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LMArena Vision OCR, which measures reading text out of images and scans. - 02
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle · $0.75 in / $3.75 out per M tokens · 1.0M context
Ranks #4 on LMArena's vision arena and #5 on OCR, with strong general vision capabilities but slightly behind its sibling on text extraction specifically.
Best when: Deploy for general document understanding tasks that balance OCR with broader image comprehension, given its #4 ranking in vision arena human preference.No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.
- 03
Muse Spark 1.2Meta · $1.25 in / $4.25 out per M tokens · 1.0M context
Ranks #6 on both LMArena's vision arena and OCR category, showing consistent performance across visual document tasks.
Best when: Use as a balanced option for mixed document types where both layout understanding and text extraction matter equally.No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.
- 04
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic · $10 in / $50 out per M tokens · 1M context
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks #2 of 34 on LMArena's document arena (score 1513), based on blind preference for document tasks.
Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LMArena Document, which measures answering questions about uploaded documents.No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.
- 05
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic · $4 in / $20 out per M tokens · 1M context
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #6 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1293), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.
Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LMArena Vision, which measures reading images, screenshots, and documents.No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.
- 06
GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI · $2 in / $10 out per M tokens · 1.1M context
Ranks #5 on LMArena's vision arena but drops to #15 on OCR, suggesting stronger general image understanding than text extraction specifically.
Best when: Use for documents with complex visual layouts, charts, or non-text elements where general vision ranking (#5) matters more than pure OCR.Watch out for
- Verify OCR output carefully on dense text documents; its #15 OCR ranking indicates weaker performance on text extraction specifically.
- 07
GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai · $0.047 in / $0.16 out per M tokens · 1.0M context · open-weight
GLM 5.3 Flash ranks #24 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1271), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.
Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LMArena Vision, which measures reading images, screenshots, and documents.No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.
- 08
Gemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogle · $0.30 in / $2.50 out per M tokens · 1.0M context
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite ranks #26 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1282), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.
Best when: Its strongest result for this task is on LMArena Vision OCR, which measures reading text out of images and scans.No practitioner reports are linked yet, so no cautions are listed. Absence of reports is not evidence of reliability.
Frequently asked
- What is the best model for Document Parsing?
- Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks first as of October 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks #2 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1316), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.[1]
- What is the best alternative to Gemini 3.8 Flash?
- Gemini 3.7 Flash ranks second. Ranks #4 on LMArena's vision arena and #5 on OCR, with strong general vision capabilities but slightly behind its sibling on text extraction specifically.[2][3]
- Which open-weight model ranks highest for Document Parsing?
- GLM 5.3 Flash is the highest-ranked open-weight model, at #7. GLM 5.3 Flash ranks #24 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1271), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.[4]
Sources
- 1
“Within the 75 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #2 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1316), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.”
LMArena Vision OCR · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 2
“Within the 81 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #4 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1295), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.”
LMArena vision arena · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 3
“Within the 75 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #5 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1308), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.”
LMArena Vision OCR · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 4
“Within the 81 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #24 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1271), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.”
LMArena vision arena · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 5
“Within the 81 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #6 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1293), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.”
LMArena vision arena · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 6
“Within the 75 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #6 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1307), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.”
LMArena Vision OCR · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 7
“Within the 34 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #2 of 34 on LMArena's document arena (score 1513), based on blind preference for document tasks.”
LMArena document arena · Benchmark · Sep 13, 2026 - 8
“Within the 81 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #6 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1293), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.”
LMArena vision arena · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 9
“Within the 81 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #5 of 81 on LMArena's vision arena (Elo 1294), based on human preference on image-understanding tasks.”
LMArena vision arena · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 10
“Within the 75 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #15 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1297), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.”
LMArena Vision OCR · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026 - 11
“Within the 75 catalog models matched to this evaluation: Ranks #26 of 75 on LMArena Vision's OCR category (Elo 1282), based on blind human preference for reading text out of images.”
LMArena Vision OCR · Benchmark · Oct 19, 2026
Rankings synthesized from community evidence and open benchmarks. See methodology. Not driven by vendor marketing.