Pretty decent might be quiet the stretch. I'd term it almost acceptable, but only if you're using commercial solutions like amazon's textract, doing it with open source tools is at best, extremely painful and vaguely accurate.

I've had success with vision models & OCR, saved me many hours / days / weeks of typing work.

Last year I finally OCR'd many hundreds of pages of my father's old writings. I found that feeding it to Claude Sonnet 4.x via API gave me results that were perfect. No corrections required. So perfect, that Claude was reading along with the story, and actually pointed out a continuity error in the story where an incorrect character was reciting dialog. Claude asked if it should transcribe exactly as is or if I would like Claude to correct the continuity error.

Claude also correctly OCR'd some handwriting that was in the margins of the documents. Sonnet came very close to transcribing a Word Sleuth puzzle, but that was where I hit the limits of its capability at the time.

Mistral OCR was also good (and actually what I started with), but it wasn't quite as good as Claude. And when it was wrong, Mistral could be frighteningly wrong - one API call must have failed, the model must have been presented with a pure black / null image, and I got back a "transcription" that described neverending darkness. It read like something the Woodsman would have broadcast in Twin Peaks S3E8. That poor model.

Tables from electronics datasheets might be okay, I think I've had success with OCR of technical manuals with tables for 80s synthesizer hardware. But I admit my use cases don't crossover into transcriptions of equations or graphs.

Exactly my experience. If you try to OCR hand-filled forms with a fixed structure, traditional OCR models are great. Vision-llms can improve a bit on character recognition, but at the cost of harder to detect failure modes.

But if you are trying to ingest diverse documents with headings, multi-column layouts, headers and footers, ad space in the middle of your text, etc, vision-llms are a giant step forward. But you need the context of the previous page to make good decisions about the current page, which is where things quickly get janky (or slow, if you choose the naive approach)

Vision-llms also seem to deal much better with variance in scripts. Cursive, random Japanese in the middle of the text, weird math symbols, handwriting from three centuries ago, all "just works" without you even having to remember that this can happen

- Azure Document Intelligence (has an option to return markdown too including headers and footers).

- AWS Textract

poma-ai has really great chunking techniques that chunk the document based on the document structure/heirarchy.

We use it on 200 page IEEE standards that are notoriously complex, filled with tables and diagram. Highly reccomend.

This is already used in OCR, tesseract uses that.

Traditional OCR is faster, cheaper, and much more reliable than LLMs