Intelligent document processing · October 2026 Edition
Nanonets vs Amazon Textract
Seven of fourteen models named Nanonets first on the direct prompt; zero named Amazon Textract. Nanonets was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Amazon Textract by thirteen and Nanonets carries 36 labels and Amazon Textract 28, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Amazon Textract
accepted challengerNamed in one category this edition.
First-choice share32%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate6%14%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#6A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels3628A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Nanonets reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Rossum was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Nanonets vs Rossum · Nanonets vs Docsumo · Nanonets vs Google Document AI
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the intelligent document processing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
NanonetsFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAmazon TextractDirect70
Paraphrase50
Comparative00
Budget-constrained421 against Amazon Textract
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Nanonets · 3 against Amazon Textract
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Nanonets and Amazon Textract were named in the same answer thirty-one times, of the 86 answers naming Nanonets and the 77 naming Amazon Textract. In those answers Amazon Textract took the first choice two times and Nanonets eleven.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Nanonets and Amazon Textract stood in it.
| Model | DirectAT | ParaphraseAT | ComparativeAT | Budget-constrainedAT | Scale-constrainedAT | NegativeAT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | AT | AT | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | AT | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | AT | AT | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | AT | AT | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | AT | | AT | |||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | AT | AT | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | AT | AT | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | | |||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | AT | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | AT | | AT | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | AT | | AT | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | AT | AT |
NanonetsAT Amazon Textract first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Nanonets on the left and Amazon Textract on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Nanonets and Amazon Textract stood in it.
Nanonets first, Amazon Textract an alternative
7 of 14 modelsAmazon Textract was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Nanonets alternatives: ABBYY Vantage, Amazon Textract, Rossum
Gemini 3.5 FlashNanonets alternatives: Affinda, Docsumo, Rossum
Perplexity SonarNanonets alternatives: ABBYY Vantage, Automation Anywhere, Rossum, UiPath Document Understanding
DeepSeek V4 FlashDocsumo, Nanonets alternatives: ABBYY Vantage, Rossum
Llama 4 MaverickNanonets
Kimi K2Nanonets alternatives: ABBYY Vantage, Rossum, UiPath Document Understanding
GLM 4.7 FlashXNanonets alternatives: DigiParser, Rossum
Neither was the first choice, one was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.1 FastABBYY Vantage alternatives: Amazon Textract, Google Document AI, Rossum, UiPath Document Understanding
Mistral SmallRossum, UiPath Document Understanding alternatives: Flowwright, Nanonets, OpenText Intelligent Document Processing
Qwen 3.7 FlashRossum alternatives: Nanonets, UiPath Document Understanding
MiniMax M2.5no first choice alternatives: ABBYY Vantage, Amazon Textract, Automation Anywhere, Azure AI Document Intelligence, Docsumo, UiPath Document Understanding
Muse Glimmer 30BRossum alternatives: Doxis AI.dp, Klippa DocHorizon, Nanonets
Neither was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniRossum alternatives: ABBYY Vantage, Automation Anywhere, Hyperscience Hypercell, UiPath Document Understanding
GPT-6 LunaABBYY Vantage alternatives: Azure AI Document Intelligence, Google Document AI
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Nanonets leads by fourteen points.
Nanonets16%#2 of 14Amazon Textract2%#8 of 14
The full small business standing →Mid-marketThe figures above
Nanonets leads by twenty-eight points.
Nanonets32%#1 of 11Amazon Textract4%#6 of 11
The full mid-market standing →Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Nanonets0%#– of 10Amazon Textract0%#10 of 10
The full enterprise standing →What the models said about Nanonets
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.
“Nanonets can feel less comfortable when the job demands deep auditability, complex exception handling, or highly variable multi-document workflows” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“its workflow-based pricing can be complex for buyers seeking stand-alone IDP” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“Choose Nanonets if your documents (like invoices) look different every time. Its AI-driven "no-template" model will save you hours of setup.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“For most small businesses with a limited budget, Nanonets is the easiest start: free $50 credits, no platform fee” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“Nanonets (Best Overall for Mid-Market): Nanonets is incredibly fast to deploy and highly intuitive.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about Amazon Textract
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid if you are non-technical: Azure AI and AWS Textract” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Be especially cautious if... custom extraction is developer-centric and that handwriting and language support need testing.” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“"Raw" Cloud Provider APIs (Without a Custom Interface) * Examples: Standalone use of AWS Textract” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“I would suggest starting with Google Cloud Document AI or Amazon Textract” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“If cost is the primary constraint, Amazon Textract is hard to beat” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“If you're already on AWS and need just extraction APIs, Textract's 3-month free tier and pay-per-page model is the cheapest to trial.” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared
Nanonets vs RossumNanonets vs DocsumoNanonets vs Google Document AINanonets vs UiPath Document UnderstandingNanonets vs ABBYY VantageRossum vs Amazon TextractDocsumo vs Amazon TextractGoogle Document AI vs Amazon TextractUiPath Document Understanding vs Amazon TextractAmazon Textract vs ABBYY VantageAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full document processing standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.