Generic OCR is the starting point, not the rival
It solves “read the text”, but not “which dimension on the drawing does this number belong to”. Inspection files need location, value and number to agree.
Comparison
Manual work, generic OCR, and TuMo Vision — where they differ
All three can “see” the text on a drawing. The difference is whether what they see becomes an inspection file someone can sign.
The table
The difference in one table
No competitor bashing — just an honest view of which step each approach handles.
| Step | Manual process | Generic OCR | TuMo Vision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Locate dimension annotations | By eye, drawing by drawing | No locating, only text | YOLO frames the whole sheet |
| Read dimension text | Hand-copied, error-prone | Reads text without context | DeepSeek OCR tied to position |
| Tolerances / deviations | Look up standards manually | Usually not handled | GB/T 1804 defaults, editable |
| Balloon numbering | Laid out by hand, numbers drift | Not supported | Grouped per view, avoids dimension lines |
| Review and correction | Up to discipline, hard to trace | Re-read only | Per-item review, confidence filter, edits |
| Deliverables | Excel + screenshots + Word | Text output | Inspection sheet, ballooned PDF, report |
| Where data lives | Local machine | Mostly cloud | Local-first, cloud OCR explicit |
| Best for | A few drawings, short notice | Just the text | Teams shipping inspection files |
Takeaways
Three takeaways
Manual work is skilled — and wasted on repetition
Judgement is the most valuable part of an engineer’s day, yet it goes into copying, formatting and renumbering. Tools should take the repetition, not the judgement.
Review stays in the loop
We do not promise full automation. Drawing quality varies too much; the person who signs must see every step. TuMo just makes review far faster than copying.
Validate it with one of your drawings
Download the client, import a real drawing, and compare how long detection to export actually takes.