I Ran the Same Document Through Tesseract and EasyOCR

December 2025. Real test, real numbers.

Tesseract has been the OCR standard since the 1980s. EasyOCR shipped in 2019 with deep learning and support for 80+ languages. Both are free and open source. The question is whether classic pattern matching can compete with modern neural networks.

The Test

Same business document, both engines, measured everything.

Test document. 1024x768 pixels, mixed fonts, some noise.

The Results

Metric	Tesseract 5.5	EasyOCR
Time	0.82s	2.45s
Confidence	89.3%	96.8%
Character errors	4	0
Languages supported	100+	80+
Setup complexity	Simple	Medium
Dependencies	~10MB	~500MB
GPU support	No	Yes

Tesseract: Fast but Struggles with Quality

Tesseract finished in 0.82 seconds. Three times faster than EasyOCR. But it made mistakes on common patterns:

"Qty" became "ay"
"#:" became #" (missing colon)
"Corporation" had inconsistent spacing
Lower confidence scores across the board (89.3% average)

On a reasonably clean document with standard fonts. Scanned or degraded images would be worse.

QUARTERLY REPORT
Invoice #: QR-2025-001
Date: December 18, 2025
Bill To:
Acme Corporation
123 Business Street
Description ay Price Total
Consulting Services 40 $150.00 $6,000.00
Project Management 20 $175.00 $3,500.00
...

Notice "ay" instead of "Qty" - the same error pattern seen in other comparisons. Tesseract's pattern matching struggles with text embedded in tables.

EasyOCR: Slower but More Accurate

EasyOCR took 2.45 seconds. Every character was correct. 96.8% average confidence. The deep learning approach handles text in context better than pattern matching.

QUARTERLY REPORT
Invoice #: QR-2025-001
Date: December 18, 2025
Bill To:
Acme Corporation
123 Business Street
Description Qty Price Total
Consulting Services 40 $150.00 $6,000.00
Project Management 20 $175.00 $3,500.00
...

Clean output with proper spacing. The neural network understands table structure and word boundaries better than Tesseract's heuristics.

Multilingual Support

Both support many languages, but the implementation differs. Tesseract requires downloading separate language packs. EasyOCR bundles language models and can detect multiple languages in a single image automatically.

Tesseract technically supports 100+ languages, but quality varies. EasyOCR focuses on 80+ languages with consistently good accuracy because every language uses the same deep learning architecture.

Setup and Dependencies

Tesseract wins on simplicity. Install with brew install tesseract or apt-get install tesseract-ocr and you're done. 10MB total.

EasyOCR requires PyTorch and deep learning dependencies. 500MB minimum. But you get GPU acceleration and better accuracy. The setup is still straightforward with pip.

The Code

Tesseract

import pytesseract

image = Image.open('document.png')
text = pytesseract.image_to_string(image, lang='eng')
print(text)

EasyOCR

import easyocr
reader = easyocr.Reader(['en'])
result = reader.readtext('document.png')
for detection in result:
    text = detection[1]
    confidence = detection[2]
    print(f"{text} ({confidence:.2f})")

My Recommendation

Use EasyOCR when: Accuracy matters. Multilingual documents. You have GPU available. Processing quality matters more than speed.

Use Tesseract when: Speed is critical. Simple documents. Resource-constrained environments. You need a lightweight solution without deep learning dependencies.

For production systems where accuracy matters, EasyOCR is worth the extra setup and processing time. For batch processing millions of simple documents where some errors are acceptable, Tesseract's speed advantage is compelling.

Back to OCR Overview