Reviews · LLM vision

GPT (vision) review

Capable general-purpose vision, same trade-offs as any LLM.

Score
5.6/10
Accuracy
14.4% WER
Benchmark rank
#5 of 8
Price
Token-based, roughly $2-$10 per 1,000 pages
Visit GPT (vision) →

GPT vision came in at 14.4% WER, a little behind Claude but with perfect reading order on our page. On a single sheet of legible handwriting the two frontier models are close enough that the gap is within the noise of any one sample.

It shares the LLM failure mode: confident substitutions where the model trusts its language prior over the literal ink. For curiosity ("what does this say?") and prototypes it is convenient and needs no new integration.

As with Claude, the reasons not to ship it for volume are practical rather than about raw accuracy: no retention controls, no native document formats, no webhooks, and a per-token cost that grows with every page and image.

Verdict

Convenient and competent for casual use; the same production caveats as any LLM-as-OCR approach apply.

Best for: Quick, checkable transcriptions inside an app that already calls the OpenAI API.

See how GPT (vision) compares in the full ranked table, or read our testing methodology.