# Amazon Textract vs LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction (slim)

> Amazon Textract scores 73.5 (BB) to LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction's 69 (B) for document parsing. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/amazon-textract-vs-landingai-agentic-document-extraction.md (~3,200 tokens) · this version ~830 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/amazon-textract-vs-landingai-agentic-document-extraction.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/amazon-textract-vs-landingai-agentic-document-extraction
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · Updated: 2026-10-09

Amazon Textract scores 73.5 (BB) on agent readiness against LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction's 69 (B), and leads in 3 of 7 scored categories. LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction leads on schema & documentation, agent ergonomics, payments & pricing and maintenance & community. Both do document parsing.

- Amazon Textract: BB 73.5, rank #88 of 950 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/amazon-textract.min.md
- LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction: B 69, rank #199 of 950 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/landingai-agentic-document-extraction.min.md
- Amazon Textract, good for Teams already on AWS with documents in S3 that need OCR, tables and form fields at volume with IAM and CloudTrail controls, and for US invoices, receipts, identity documents and mortgage packages. Ahead on Reliability, 96 against 85; Security & auth, 74 against 43; Transparency & trust, 82 against 63. Also Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better.
- LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction, good for Agents that need Markdown with block-level page coordinates and schema extraction with citations, in the US or EU. Ahead on Schema & documentation, 88 against 82; Agent ergonomics, 75 against 70; Payments & pricing, 40 against 35; Maintenance & community, 85 against 58.

| Category | Amazon Textract | LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 96 | 85 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 82 | 88 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 70 | 75 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 74 | 43 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 35 | 40 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 58 | 85 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 82 | 63 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Amazon Textract | LandingAI Agentic Document Extraction |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Amazon Web Services | LandingAI, Inc. |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://textract.us-east-1.amazonaws.com` | `https://api.ade.landing.ai` |
| Price for document parsing | not published | $15 per 1,000 pages |
| Licence | Proprietary service under the AWS Customer Agreement. The AWS SDKs and the Textractor helper library are Apache-2.0 | Proprietary service under LandingAI's terms for Agentic Document Extraction. The Python and TypeScript libraries and the CLI are Apache-2.0, and the skills repository is MIT |
| Last release | 2026-10-08 | 2026-09-22 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-08-14 | no date given |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-05-18 | no date given |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | yes |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | yes |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | yes |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | not found in the text |
| Popularity | 1.9M npm/wk, 208k PyPI/wk | none |