Nutrient.io in Converting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API
Scenario-level performance from current published Results.
6 of 12 scenarios published
Where Nutrient.io failed
5 of 6 graded scenarios. Open a Result to see the conversation and the evidence.
A document containing a code block
Nutrient.io did not preserve the code block in its default PDF-to-Markdown conversion. It returned the Python snippet as a table without a code fence or its original indentation.
View Result →A page laid out in multiple columns
Nutrient.io did not consistently preserve natural reading order for a two-column PDF in its default Build pipeline. It placed a masthead line in the middle of a body sentence, although the body columns themselves were read in order on all three pages.
View Result →A cleanly scanned document
Nutrient.io did not recover the text from a clean scan using its default conversion. Although the API returned a successful response, the Markdown contained only two newline characters.
View Result →A simple, clearly formatted table
Nutrient.io failed to keep the simple table intact in the default Build API run. The output kept all values, row count, and row order, but merged the method and turnaround headers and cells.
View Result →An ordinary digital text document
Nutrient.io failed on ordinary digital text. The returned Markdown kept the words, but four page breaks merged the running header into body text, while two breaks stayed clean.
View Result →How Nutrient.io performed
Open a capability to explore its scenarios. Each row reports the test set in its published Result.
Code Extraction1 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document containing a code block | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedNutrient.io did not preserve the code block in its default PDF-to-Markdown conversion. It returned the Python snippet as a table without a code fence or its original indentation. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Heading & Section Structure1 pass1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Footnotes at the bottom of the page | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedNutrient.io passed this footnote-handling case. The Markdown kept all thirteen notes separate from body paragraphs across all four pages, with matching digits still in the body. The free-tier run returned 10,842 characters of Markdown. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A document with styled headings and subheadings | No published result | ||
Reading Order & Layout1 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A page laid out in multiple columns | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedNutrient.io did not consistently preserve natural reading order for a two-column PDF in its default Build pipeline. It placed a masthead line in the middle of a body sentence, although the body columns themselves were read in order on all three pages. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Scanned Document OCR1 fail1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cleanly scanned document | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedNutrient.io did not recover the text from a clean scan using its default conversion. Although the API returned a successful response, the Markdown contained only two newline characters. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A document mixing digital and scanned pages | No published result | ||
Table Extraction1 fail1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A simple, clearly formatted table | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedNutrient.io failed to keep the simple table intact in the default Build API run. The output kept all values, row count, and row order, but merged the method and turnaround headers and cells. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A table that continues across a page break | No published result | ||
Text Fidelity1 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ordinary digital text document | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedNutrient.io failed on ordinary digital text. The returned Markdown kept the words, but four page breaks merged the running header into body text, while two breaks stayed clean. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Equations & Mathematical Notation1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document containing mathematical equations | No published result | ||
Figures & Charts2 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document with a data chart | No published result | ||
| A document with figures and captions | No published result | ||
Reading these Results
Published evidence and test coverage answer different questions.
Which scenarios have a Result?
A published Result is public evidence for this tool on one scenario. “No published result” does not say whether testing has taken place.
What does each Result cover?
Assessed includes Pass, Fail and Not gradable. Gradable includes Pass and Fail. Both use the pinned test count in that published Result.
Out of 12 scenarios
The summary counts each of the 12 scenarios once. A scenario fails when any of its published test cases failed. “No published Result yet” means nothing is public for that scenario; it does not say whether Nutrient.io was tested on it.