A tangential observation: the video on the linked page wasn't what I expected. I thought Mistral was a european AI company, so I didnt expect the video to be filmed in San Francisco featuring three people who don't seem to be european.
I'm not against them being a global organization, that's wonderful. I was just surprised. I expected a parisian office and european accents.
Unfortunately Europeans are terrible customers for making money. They ask a lot of questions and they're very stingy with their wallets. Americans on the other hand ...
~Any borderline-large European tech company will have an office on the US west coast, for sales if nothing else. And probably sales engineering. The timezone difference is eight to ten hours; there is really no way around it.
(I did work for one which had an office in Vancouver, instead; same tz.)
To the best of my knowledge, most of the founding team started their careers in the US ( meta,etc..) and their primary investors are US VCs. In that regard, they smartly benefit on both side : US funding and European brains
It's cheap at $4/1k, but I'm hesitant to even benchmark this one again since the previous versions were all "98% accurate based on internal benchmarks of 4 pdfs" and ended up falling short of almost everything else on the market [1].
Even in this one, they just report that OlmOCRBench and OmniDocBench have "known limitations" and that's why they report flagship numbers from their internal benchmark.
Tested with Malayalam, normal handwriting got accurate but a slight different style got detected as kannada. Have samples if required, which sarvam got done with 99% accuracy leaving one text error.
I'm curious what's been your experience with Sarvam outside of Indic languages - Indian English (perhaps mixed with romanised indic verbiage) and also documents with complex layouts (figures, tables, etc).
I've been quite curious but hesitant about Indian offerings, particularly because they seem to be priced a little higher than what I would think they should be (I could be wrong and simply be misrembering though).
I think until Fable, Claude's vision was significantly worse than GPT and Gemini in my personal experience. I eval almost every vision model since I work on screenshot to code conversion project: https://github.com/abi/screenshot-to-code.
"A note on out-of-scope use. OCR 4 is a document-understanding model, not a decision-maker. It is not intended for medical diagnosis, legal advice or judgment, high-stakes financial decisions, safety-critical systems, real-time/latency-sensitive processing, or non-document inputs (raw audio, video, etc.). "
Can't wait for the "oh so innovative" manager who will suggest during the next meeting "Ok... but what if WE used it for high-stakes financial decisions on non-document inputs like a photo from my phone?"
I guarantee you somebody on HN is going to comment about this "idea" next week.
Why would anybody do that you would simply get terrible results compared to dozens of other more capable models. It's for converting to text not answering questions. Just seems like you need some sort of weird angle to bring out an anti AI stance
Little on differences other than bounding boxes and double the price compared to their previous OCR v3 model from December - https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-ocr-3/ - other benchmarks were used back then.
Recently I tied OCR with Opus 4.8. (I know, not technically right tool for the job). All I needed to do was extract dates from receipts. It got about 20% of the dates wrong yet rated all as “high confidence”.
Should have probably tried a more OCR specific model
> All I needed to do was extract dates from receipts
Was this... not basically a solved problem like 30 years ago? I'm pretty sure the shareware OCR tool that came with a black and white scanner I had at one point would do better than 20% wrong.
How long have you been testing this? Have you noted a large improvement? I tested Opus for this quite a while ago (maybe 4.5? Whatever was out about a year ago), and it performed quite poorly on my use case.
I have put together an internal benchmark on 1000s of business documents with weird tables, structure, etc. that I run on every relevant model release. Opus 4.8 performs very very well. But it is obviously overkill for the task (and expensive at doing so). I just wanted to respond to the OP.
I'm assuming that the reason I didn't have good success rate is because it was not scanned documents, but photographs, and lighting conditions weren't always ideal. I think scanned business documents are a happy-case scenario in a way. (obv, you seem to run it against some complex documents, so that's impressive)
Opus 4.8 scanned hundreds of PDFs for me recently with the worst handwriting imaginable. 100% successful, other than one record where even I could not figure out what was written.
I do not believe this story, because of the message I just posted above.
That's not really productive lol, I'm glad it worked for you but these models are non-deterministic and 'YMMV' very much applies everywhere. I had it parse receipts (in fairness, in variable lightning), all taken from iPhone cameras in the past year. And yeah, not a great job, about 20% failed to get the date correct. (Not outrageously wrong, e.g 05/20/2026 becomes 05/23/2026.
I was processing 55 year old paper files, most of them severely degraded, with its predecessor model. I was very impressed! I also tried Abbyy Finereader but it didn't even come close in my experience.
I used Abbyy Finereader for several years. I loved it. I completed some large projects with it. Modern VLMs put classic FineReader to shame for processing low-resolution/degraded/non-standard text.
I'm personally using the small Qwen 3.5 models. If you have an OCR problem, Mistral OCR 4 is probably great. Open weights models that you can run on a laptop may also work great.
Not well tested. It switched all U.S. (") double quotation marks to UK-style (') single quotation marks, ignoring the source document. Useless in the US.
Does anyone know of OCR benchmarks that include hand-written documents? I'm currently using Gemini pro 3 for this, and error rates are quite good, but it's a little bit pricey, and I'd be interested in a cheaper model that could perform as well, but almost all the OCR benchmarks I'm aware of (and I believe all the ones included in this announcement) are about printed/typeset text.
Are there benchmarks for how this performs on charts, or maybe more accurately, plots? I've yet to find a model that can digitize a plot into X,Y points with some accuracy in my use case of digitizing old datasheets.
Edit: I also asked Gemini 3.1 Pro to analyze the certificate and it looks good
It looks like you have shared an `about:certificate` URL containing a chain of three Base64-encoded X.509 TLS/SSL certificates. This specific chain is used to secure connections to *mistral.ai*.
Here is the decoded breakdown of the certificate chain you provided:
## Certificate Chain Overview
This is a standard three-tier certificate chain issued by Google Trust Services for the Mistral AI domain.
---
### 1. Leaf Certificate (End-Entity)
This is the specific certificate issued to the website to verify its identity and encrypt traffic.
I was just using infinity parser 2 (flash, to be fair) for pennies self-hosted to run through thousands of pages of documents with remarkable confidence. I decided to use https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/olmOCR-bench to determine what was the best OCR tool, yesterday, but I've got no idea what the best is now. What is the dominant OCR eval right now? Between Baidu and Mistral this morning, I wonder if there's a new tool to switch to..
Yes, we've been using Transkribus for this extensively. My wife is a historian who spends quite a bit of time sorting through old letters and diaries, and it has been a considerable quality of life improvement.
Even if you are able to read someone's scratches, having a model to do the bulk lifting saves your eyes a lot of squinting. One thing that makes Transkribus useful for research vs a chat interface is that it can line up its interpretation alongside the original image so you can examine its work directly.
In the sense that you can get similarity scores for individual characters referenced against a known database of characters written by various individuals. You can get stylometry scores out of small LLMs that do demographic segmentation based on writing style using the same methods.
They won't have the capacity to be fed an image of handwritten text and say "Ahh, this is a note written by Winston Churchill!". You could very easily use these models and your agent framework of choice, like Hermes, the Segment Anything models, and other foss tooling to build a dedicated, specialist handwriting recognition system. Or facial recognition, or fingerprint recognition, etc - these sorts of things can be done very procedurally, without a lot of interpretive AI.
Yes, we have successfully used Mistral OCR for digitizing handwritten forms. You always have low percentage that need human review and adjustment, but overall Mistral has been highly accurate (their price is amazing, too).
After paying for Mistral and using it for a while I genuinely hated it. It's a productivity black hole and can't realistically compete with anyone. I chose it only because it was European, but no. I'd rather let my one year subscription go to waste than use anything 'Mistral'.
Sure, well for me it isn't. It has been awful for even toy tasks that opencode's free plan did without an issue. The general sentiment about it is that it is really bad. I wish I knew before paying.
The armies of people desperate to defend mistral, scouring the internet for any of the hundreds of negative posts made about it daily is pathetic. There's a reason it needs 'fanboys' and 'defenders'... it sucks. Id have loved to use a European alternative, but Europeans need to get serious and actually offer an alternative that has value other than "it's trash, but it has a Made in Europe badge".
All AI labs really need to stop using truncated y-axes for benchmark bar charts...
https://mistral.ai/_astro/cm-engish_ZhlvoT.webp?dpl=6a3a94bd...
A tangential observation: the video on the linked page wasn't what I expected. I thought Mistral was a european AI company, so I didnt expect the video to be filmed in San Francisco featuring three people who don't seem to be european.
I'm not against them being a global organization, that's wonderful. I was just surprised. I expected a parisian office and european accents.
Unfortunately Europeans are terrible customers for making money. They ask a lot of questions and they're very stingy with their wallets. Americans on the other hand ...
Oh come on!
Mistral has a successful business model and is actually making money.
You're american?
~Any borderline-large European tech company will have an office on the US west coast, for sales if nothing else. And probably sales engineering. The timezone difference is eight to ten hours; there is really no way around it.
(I did work for one which had an office in Vancouver, instead; same tz.)
Mistral just hired as CMO a Seattle based former Amazon/Google VP¹ , so seems their US based presence is growing.
¹ The one locally famous for being sued by Amazon for non compete back when non compete were a thing: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/amazon-sues-former-aws-marketi...
And US users spend much more than their EU counterpart
To the best of my knowledge, most of the founding team started their careers in the US ( meta,etc..) and their primary investors are US VCs. In that regard, they smartly benefit on both side : US funding and European brains
There is even like an american flag flying high in the background
Mistral keeps reminding us that doesn´t just brew great coffee they can build great AI too. Hats off to the team. Mistral O.C.R. (Only Cool Results)
It's cheap at $4/1k, but I'm hesitant to even benchmark this one again since the previous versions were all "98% accurate based on internal benchmarks of 4 pdfs" and ended up falling short of almost everything else on the market [1].
Even in this one, they just report that OlmOCRBench and OmniDocBench have "known limitations" and that's why they report flagship numbers from their internal benchmark.
https://getomni.ai/blog/benchmarking-open-source-models-for-...
Tested with Malayalam, normal handwriting got accurate but a slight different style got detected as kannada. Have samples if required, which sarvam got done with 99% accuracy leaving one text error.
I'm curious what's been your experience with Sarvam outside of Indic languages - Indian English (perhaps mixed with romanised indic verbiage) and also documents with complex layouts (figures, tables, etc).
I've been quite curious but hesitant about Indian offerings, particularly because they seem to be priced a little higher than what I would think they should be (I could be wrong and simply be misrembering though).
It'll be interesting to see how this ranks against https://github.com/baidu/Unlimited-OCR
Right, just announced https://x.com/BaiduAI_News/status/2069322806748410291
The comparisons rank it against GPT and Gemini but not Claude. Is Claude's vision support simply not competitive when it comes to OCR tasks?
I think until Fable, Claude's vision was significantly worse than GPT and Gemini in my personal experience. I eval almost every vision model since I work on screenshot to code conversion project: https://github.com/abi/screenshot-to-code.
"A note on out-of-scope use. OCR 4 is a document-understanding model, not a decision-maker. It is not intended for medical diagnosis, legal advice or judgment, high-stakes financial decisions, safety-critical systems, real-time/latency-sensitive processing, or non-document inputs (raw audio, video, etc.). "
Can't wait for the "oh so innovative" manager who will suggest during the next meeting "Ok... but what if WE used it for high-stakes financial decisions on non-document inputs like a photo from my phone?"
I guarantee you somebody on HN is going to comment about this "idea" next week.
Why would anybody do that you would simply get terrible results compared to dozens of other more capable models. It's for converting to text not answering questions. Just seems like you need some sort of weird angle to bring out an anti AI stance
I think his comment is referring to a scenario where a decision is made on financial numbers that are misrecognized. E.g. 9.0% actual is OCR’d as 90%
“I delegated critical financial decisions to my OCR software, and you won’t believe what happened next.”
Little on differences other than bounding boxes and double the price compared to their previous OCR v3 model from December - https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-ocr-3/ - other benchmarks were used back then.
Recently I tied OCR with Opus 4.8. (I know, not technically right tool for the job). All I needed to do was extract dates from receipts. It got about 20% of the dates wrong yet rated all as “high confidence”.
Should have probably tried a more OCR specific model
> All I needed to do was extract dates from receipts
Was this... not basically a solved problem like 30 years ago? I'm pretty sure the shareware OCR tool that came with a black and white scanner I had at one point would do better than 20% wrong.
Opus is very good at OCR. Way better than the small 1-4B VLMs. If Opus failed, most likely those smaller models will fail as well.
How long have you been testing this? Have you noted a large improvement? I tested Opus for this quite a while ago (maybe 4.5? Whatever was out about a year ago), and it performed quite poorly on my use case.
I have put together an internal benchmark on 1000s of business documents with weird tables, structure, etc. that I run on every relevant model release. Opus 4.8 performs very very well. But it is obviously overkill for the task (and expensive at doing so). I just wanted to respond to the OP.
I'm assuming that the reason I didn't have good success rate is because it was not scanned documents, but photographs, and lighting conditions weren't always ideal. I think scanned business documents are a happy-case scenario in a way. (obv, you seem to run it against some complex documents, so that's impressive)
I’m curious what your findings are for the best model for your use case
I do not believe this story.
Opus 4.8 scanned hundreds of PDFs for me recently with the worst handwriting imaginable. 100% successful, other than one record where even I could not figure out what was written.
I do not believe this story, because of the message I just posted above.
That's not really productive lol, I'm glad it worked for you but these models are non-deterministic and 'YMMV' very much applies everywhere. I had it parse receipts (in fairness, in variable lightning), all taken from iPhone cameras in the past year. And yeah, not a great job, about 20% failed to get the date correct. (Not outrageously wrong, e.g 05/20/2026 becomes 05/23/2026.
YMMV, glad it worked for you.
Are you sure you weren't using Sonnet or a low-effort reasoning mode?
Yes, lol
I believe it. Makes me curious what your prompt was that got such a good result out of Opus.
I was processing 55 year old paper files, most of them severely degraded, with its predecessor model. I was very impressed! I also tried Abbyy Finereader but it didn't even come close in my experience.
I used Abbyy Finereader for several years. I loved it. I completed some large projects with it. Modern VLMs put classic FineReader to shame for processing low-resolution/degraded/non-standard text.
I'm personally using the small Qwen 3.5 models. If you have an OCR problem, Mistral OCR 4 is probably great. Open weights models that you can run on a laptop may also work great.
Not well tested. It switched all U.S. (") double quotation marks to UK-style (') single quotation marks, ignoring the source document. Useless in the US.
Does anyone know of OCR benchmarks that include hand-written documents? I'm currently using Gemini pro 3 for this, and error rates are quite good, but it's a little bit pricey, and I'd be interested in a cheaper model that could perform as well, but almost all the OCR benchmarks I'm aware of (and I believe all the ones included in this announcement) are about printed/typeset text.
This has been a niche where Mistral has actually been successful. Btw, Hindi and Japanese are bucketed in "Rare Languages," which is odd.
I read that as "languages under-represented in the training set".
Way too expensive. Google vision OCR (which they failed to compare against), is $1.50 per 1k pages. Vs $4 from Mistral.
interesting - an equivalent Azure Document Intelligence service (scanning with layout) is 10$/1k
I wonder how it does compare to reducto, pulse, extendai.
Is there a complete list of the languages they support, and benchmarks by language, instead of just "Rare Languages"?
This runs for free on CPU https://github.com/kouhxp/textsnap
Why the chart crimes?!
Are there benchmarks for how this performs on charts, or maybe more accurately, plots? I've yet to find a model that can digitize a plot into X,Y points with some accuracy in my use case of digitizing old datasheets.
Is there something wrong with their certificate? Chromium is saying https isn't valid
Looks good to me on both brave (on android) and firefox (on windows 11). Lets see what ssl labs says (it is running now)
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=mistral.ai&la...
Looks good so far, A+ on ipv4 as well as ipv6
Edit: I also asked Gemini 3.1 Pro to analyze the certificate and it looks good
It looks like you have shared an `about:certificate` URL containing a chain of three Base64-encoded X.509 TLS/SSL certificates. This specific chain is used to secure connections to *mistral.ai*.
Here is the decoded breakdown of the certificate chain you provided:
## Certificate Chain Overview
This is a standard three-tier certificate chain issued by Google Trust Services for the Mistral AI domain.
---
### 1. Leaf Certificate (End-Entity)
This is the specific certificate issued to the website to verify its identity and encrypt traffic.
* *Subject (Common Name):* `mistral.ai` * *Subject Alternative Names (SANs):* `mistral.ai`, `workers.mistral.ai` * *Issuer:* WE1 (Google Trust Services) * *Valid From:* June 13, 2026 * *Valid To:* September 11, 2026 * *Key Type:* Elliptic Curve (ECDSA)
### 2. Intermediate Certificate
This certificate acts as a bridge between the website's certificate and the trusted Root CA.
* *Subject:* WE1 (Google Trust Services) * *Issuer:* GTS Root R4 (Google Trust Services LLC) * *Valid From:* December 13, 2023 * *Valid To:* February 20, 2029 * *Key Type:* Elliptic Curve (ECDSA)
### 3. Root Certificate
This is the foundational trust anchor pre-installed in browsers and operating systems.
* *Subject:* GTS Root R4 (Google Trust Services LLC) * *Issuer:* GTS Root R4 (Self-signed) * *Valid From:* June 22, 2016 * *Valid To:* June 22, 2036 * *Key Type:* Elliptic Curve (ECDSA)
thanks I'm going to have to check whats going on with my setup then
1000 pages for $4? damn how does it compare to llama parse I wonder
I was just using infinity parser 2 (flash, to be fair) for pennies self-hosted to run through thousands of pages of documents with remarkable confidence. I decided to use https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/olmOCR-bench to determine what was the best OCR tool, yesterday, but I've got no idea what the best is now. What is the dominant OCR eval right now? Between Baidu and Mistral this morning, I wonder if there's a new tool to switch to..
(jerry from llamaindex here) we're gonna benchmark on ParseBench and report the results!
Or Apples local OCR/Vision models?
Do these models (this one or its competitors) do handwriting recognition?
Yes, we've been using Transkribus for this extensively. My wife is a historian who spends quite a bit of time sorting through old letters and diaries, and it has been a considerable quality of life improvement.
Even if you are able to read someone's scratches, having a model to do the bulk lifting saves your eyes a lot of squinting. One thing that makes Transkribus useful for research vs a chat interface is that it can line up its interpretation alongside the original image so you can examine its work directly.
In the sense that you can get similarity scores for individual characters referenced against a known database of characters written by various individuals. You can get stylometry scores out of small LLMs that do demographic segmentation based on writing style using the same methods.
They won't have the capacity to be fed an image of handwritten text and say "Ahh, this is a note written by Winston Churchill!". You could very easily use these models and your agent framework of choice, like Hermes, the Segment Anything models, and other foss tooling to build a dedicated, specialist handwriting recognition system. Or facial recognition, or fingerprint recognition, etc - these sorts of things can be done very procedurally, without a lot of interpretive AI.
I think OP meant converting handwriting to text, not identifying a person based on their handwriting style! (but that sounds quite interesting)
Yes, we have successfully used Mistral OCR for digitizing handwritten forms. You always have low percentage that need human review and adjustment, but overall Mistral has been highly accurate (their price is amazing, too).
If you mean handwriting to text then yes
Yep that's what I mean, thanks :)
Not opensource right?
The weights do not appear to be downloadable, "contact sales for self hosting"
starting y axis from 50 and 95 is a bit mileading
After paying for Mistral and using it for a while I genuinely hated it. It's a productivity black hole and can't realistically compete with anyone. I chose it only because it was European, but no. I'd rather let my one year subscription go to waste than use anything 'Mistral'.
Opposite advice. It's very useful to me for dev and general tasks.
Been using Claude in parallele, it's better not not that much, just 10x (or 100x ?) more expensive.
Sure, well for me it isn't. It has been awful for even toy tasks that opencode's free plan did without an issue. The general sentiment about it is that it is really bad. I wish I knew before paying.
Mistral's coding models aren't on par with current SOTA US and Chinese models if that's what you're referring to, but I rather like their OCR models.
> After paying for Mistral and using it for a while I genuinely hated it
For OCR?
Same, I got a refund 3 days later. It is unusable.
The armies of people desperate to defend mistral, scouring the internet for any of the hundreds of negative posts made about it daily is pathetic. There's a reason it needs 'fanboys' and 'defenders'... it sucks. Id have loved to use a European alternative, but Europeans need to get serious and actually offer an alternative that has value other than "it's trash, but it has a Made in Europe badge".
what did you use it for and when?