Head-to-head
PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 vs DeepSeek-OCR 2
A 10.4-point composite gap — but the real story is the dimension mix. Same weights, unpacked: who leads where, and whether the premium is justified.
The short answer
The composites differ by 10.4 points, and their strengths do not overlap.
Stronger overall: DeepSeek-OCR 2. If you only run one workload, read the dimension table instead.
Overlaid radar
Same weights, same scale; overlap means parity
- PaddleOCR-VL 1.671.5
- DeepSeek-OCR 281.9
Dimension deltas
A on the left, B on the right; 100 max per row
PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 leads 2, DeepSeek-OCR 2 leads 6.
Spec sheet
Hard specs in one table
| Item | PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 | DeepSeek-OCR 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Composite | 71.5 | 81.9 |
| Tier | B | B+ |
| Visual perception & grounding | 80 | 84WIN |
| Document parsing & Chinese OCR | 98 | 99WIN |
| Chart & document reasoning | 82 | 88WIN |
| Video & long-horizon reasoning | 40 | 70WIN |
| GUI agents & tool use | 45 | 72WIN |
| Generation & editing | 30 | 60WIN |
| Chinese context & culture | 92WIN | 90 |
| Ecosystem, cost & availability | 90WIN | 76 |
| Output price | ¥0 / M | ¥0.8 / M |
| Context | 128K | 64K |
| Parameters | 0.9B dense | Undisclosed (DeepEncoder V2) |
| Licence | Open weights (Apache-2.0) | Open (MIT-style) |
| Native multimodal | No | No |
| Evidence grade | A | A |
How to choose
Choose PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 if…
- Batch PDF and receipt structuring
- Table extraction
- Low-cost CPU deployment
- You cannot accept its limitation: Not a general model: video 40, agents 45, generation 30.
How to choose
Choose DeepSeek-OCR 2 if…
- Batch receipt and contract structuring
- Archive digitization
- RAG document preprocessing
- You cannot accept its limitation: Image/document only; no video or audio.
Scenario check
Five scenarios, who holds up
| Scenario | PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 | DeepSeek-OCR 2 | Better |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese receipt OCR | 98 | 98 | Tie |
| Table extraction | 96 | 87 | PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 |
| Chart data extraction | 82 | 60 | PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 |
| 30-min video QA | 40 | 65 | DeepSeek-OCR 2 |
| Chinese cultural context | 92 | 88 | PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 |
Comparison FAQ
PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 vs DeepSeek-OCR 2: which is stronger?
Composite: PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 71.5, DeepSeek-OCR 2 81.9. PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 leads on Chinese context & culture, Ecosystem, cost & availability; DeepSeek-OCR 2 leads on Visual perception & grounding, Document parsing & Chinese OCR, Chart & document reasoning, Video & long-horizon reasoning, GUI agents & tool use, Generation & editing. The stronger overall is DeepSeek-OCR 2.
How much more expensive is PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 than DeepSeek-OCR 2?
PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 is ¥0/1M output tokens; DeepSeek-OCR 2 is ¥0.8/1M. On output price, DeepSeek-OCR 2 is pricier; real cost also depends on image tokens and input share.
Can DeepSeek-OCR 2 replace PaddleOCR-VL 1.6?
It depends on your primary workload. If it sits in DeepSeek-OCR 2’s strengths (Batch receipt and contract structuring, Archive digitization, RAG document preprocessing), yes. If you need Batch PDF and receipt structuring, switching will cost quality.
Personal ranking · Not an official score
Every ranking, score and comparison on this page is an independent personal ranking, not an official score, and represents no vendor, institution or regulator. Scores are a subjective mapping of public evidence under our own weights — change the weights and the order changes. Disagree, or spotted a factual error? Contact the site owner: jizhi2024@foxmail.com — we check each report and log corrections in the changelog.