AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 18 October 2026

How does Firecrawl represent data charts when converting PDFs to Markdown?

Firecrawl did not preserve the data chart in this PDF-to-Markdown conversion. Its default output omitted both the chart image and its title.

1 of 1 test case failed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate0%0 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case with a result
0PassNo test case passed.
1FailMissed at least one thing it was expected to do; the reason and proof are with each test case below.
0Not gradableEvery result here could be graded.
0UntestedEvery test case in this scenario has a result.
The pass rate is a summary. The evidence is the test case below: what we sent, what we checked, what the tool returned, and the proof.

The test case

Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on this test case.

Data chart — preserved with titleFailEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Input PDF: survey report with a titled sediment accretion chart
Open the PDF ↗
What the tool returned
Markdown

Change is reported as a mean annual rate over each winter, taken across the whole intertidal part of the line. Accretion varied markedly between transects, and the pattern is the same in each of the three winters measured.

The rates plotted are means over the intertidal part of each line, weighted by the length of profile each observation represents. A mean of that kind conceals a good deal. On transect two most of the gain is in the upper third of the profile, and on transect four the loss is almost all at the toe of the wall; the profiles show this plainly and a mean does not.

{
  "markdown": "# Intertidal survey of Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point\n\nReport BEP/SR/2026/11 · Survey of 19 to 23 January 2026 · Issued February 2026\n\n## Summary\n\nThe four fixed transects at Kellow Sands and Thrimby Point were resurveyed in January, in the … [5,675 characters in the file]",
  "metadata": {
    "scrapeId": "01a08b71-ddd2-75e9-aeb6-80514cd338fa",
    "sourceURL": "intertidal_survey_BEP-SR-2026-11.pdf",
    "url": "https://parse.firecrawl.dev/uploads/intertidal_survey_BEP-SR-2026-11.pdf",
    "statusCode": 200,
    "numPages": 4,
    "totalPages": 4,
    "title": "(anonymous)",
    "contentType": "application/pdf",
    "proxyUsed": "basic",
    "creditsUsed": 4,
    "concurrencyLimited": false
  }
}

Returned Markdown: survey report text around the chart

Copied from Output file (Markdown), lines 44–48

Open the Markdown file ↗

Raw API response: Markdown and metadata

Copied from Captured file (JSON), data · an excerpt

Open the whole JSON file ↗
Expected vs. Found
✗Expected: The chart preserved as an image in its original position, with its title. Textual chart data was optional.Found: The Markdown moved directly between the paragraphs surrounding the sediment accretion chart, without an image, link or placeholder. Its title was absent too.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screenshot
Comparison: source chart and corresponding Markdown passage
Open original ↗
Proof 2Screenshot
Run card: conversion status, settings and input
Open original ↗
Why this result

The chart and its title were both required. Firecrawl completed the conversion of the full PDF, but its default output contained neither, so the result is a fail rather than an incomplete conversion.

Also observed in this test case

Alternative image request. In a separate conversion of the same PDF, Firecrawl was asked for images as well as Markdown. It returned an empty image list and no image reference at the chart’s position.

Chart data in text. The output contained no axis values, legend entries or bar values from the sediment accretion chart.

Tested by Chandresh Bisht · evidence dated 10 September 2026

Configuration and setup

How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.

Software that produced the output
Firecrawl
Build or version
not exposed (Firecrawl API v2, /v2/parse)
Plan or tier
free tier
Surface
API
Set up before the run
A complete PDF with a data chart and title had to be converted in one default pass, with no per-tool tuning and with the full file sent, not a cropped page.
Pipeline
Single pass; no options set (the product's defaults); Markdown output only
Tested
10 September 2026 · Chandresh Bisht

How this scenario is graded

How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.

How results are decided

Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.

The rules
  • Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
  • Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the test case's result says which one and quotes the tool.
  • Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the test case's result says what's missing.

Where this sits in the benchmark

This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.

History of this result

What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.

from the publication record
11 November 2026First publishedConverting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API v1

Act on this result

Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.

This matches what I see

You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.

Agree →
This does not match

Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.

Disagree →
Point out an issue

Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.

Report an issue →
Request a retest

On a newer build, a larger dataset, or your own setup.

Request a retest →
We have fixed this

Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.

Vendor notice →
Filed against this evidenceNothing yet. Challenges, counter-evidence and fix notices appear here with their outcome, and stay on the page after they are resolved.
Cite this result
aidemos.com/benchmarks/pdf-to-markdown-apis/results/firecrawl/a-document-with-a-data-chart · 0 pass · 1 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-18

The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.

Verify the proof files

These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.

Input · Document (PDF) ↗application/pdf · 301 KB
Proof 1 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 140 KB
Output file (Markdown) ↗text/markdown · 6 KB
Captured file (JSON) ↗application/json · 6 KB
Proof 2 · Screenshot ↗image/png · 91 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Input · Document (PDF)75b2bcc613580942d7d3222254c0f0d084525c2c6521f55cffa629c49f64c608
Proof 1 · Screenshotc041e475035e184ac9fb9e4d036a5804da711d4836227b7da43e154de2291320
Output file (Markdown)bd07a79586975fe68e5aadb39205264ba1fc4c1a7e1eb2a10054b08079c5113e
Captured file (JSON)b161a595c9b2912e096fb32742c35b33da165f5e5703a69603ecd2a8550ed557
Proof 2 · Screenshot53066fb497ac390d88ee28fc3e3986ea9d1ab9ecd5ea4390a676d9fafe463f90