SYFTLY/ answers
light estimateLast updated 2026-08-20

Reducto vs Z.ai

Reducto vs GLM-OCR for ocr & document extraction. Computed from public benchmarks with dated sources; updated 2026-08-20.

Head to head
Reducto compared with GLM-OCR per decision axis
AxisReductoGLM-OCREdge
Price—*—*—
Score—95.22—
Max pages—100—
tables✓✓—
handwriting✓✓—
JSON✓✓—

* token-/credit-priced — the headline understates real per-unit cost, so no price edge is awarded.

Strengths & caveats
ReductoAgentic document platform aimed at hard real-world docs (complex tables, bounding boxes, schema extraction), 30+ formats, webhooks/async; well-regarded for accuracy on messy enterprise PDFs, with a 20% credit discount on non-urgent batch parsing under a 12-hour completion guarantee. Pricing not comparable: credit-based ($0.015/credit after 15K free on Standard, Growth/Enterprise custom) with no clean public per-page rate, since credits consumed depend on operation type, configuration and page count; no published OmniDocBench score (its '67.8%' figure came from a non-Tier-1 secondary source and is unverified).Z.aiHighest published independent OmniDocBench composite of any hosted API in this table (95.22 on v1.6; Z.ai cites 94.62 on v1.5), callable at api.z.ai/api/paas/v4/layout_parsing with text, markdown and image-link output, HTML table reconstruction and handwriting support; the underlying 0.9B model is also self-hostable, and throughput is quoted at 1.86 PDF pages/second. Priced per token ($0.03 per million tokens for both input and output), not per page, so no comparable $/1000-pages rate exists without estimating — excluded from the price axis. Tight caps (100 pages per document, PDF 50MB, single image 10MB) rule it out for large documents, the documented language list is narrower than the hyperscalers', and China-hosted inference may raise data-residency questions for EU/US buyers.
Sources