Unstructured vs Marker
Both are alternatives to AWS Textract. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Marker vs Unstructured — same comparison, one verdict.
Unstructured is open source (Apache-2.0) and Marker is not (GPL-3.0 with commercial revenue condition) — so the real question is whether you want to own the document ai & ocr stack or rent it.
Unstructured
One interface for every document format you will actually be handed.
Unstructured normalises an unusually wide range of inputs — PDF, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, HTML, email, EPUB, images — into a consistent element structure of titles, narrative text, tables and lists, ready for chunking. Breadth is the point: real corpora are never one format, and writing a parser per type is where ingestion projects stall. The open library is Apache-2.0 and runs locally; the company also sells a hosted API with additional models.
Marker
The best PDF-to-Markdown quality here — check the licence first.
Marker converts PDFs to Markdown with the highest fidelity of anything in this list: it handles equations, code blocks, tables and multi-column layouts, and optionally uses an LLM pass to improve difficult sections. For academic papers and technical documents the output quality is noticeably ahead. The caveat we would rather state than have you find in a licence review: Marker is GPL-3.0 with an additional revenue condition from its maintainer, so organisations above a revenue threshold need a commercial licence. Free for research and for smaller organisations, but not unconditionally.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| Unstructured | Marker | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 90 | 70 |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 with commercial revenue condition |
| Pricing | Open library free under Apache-2.0; a paid hosted API is offered separately. | Free below the maintainer's revenue threshold; a commercial licence is required above it. |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 8 GB with the high-resolution strategy | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $0 for the open library; their hosted API is priced per page | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 2 hours, mostly fighting system dependencies | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Moderate. The dependency surface is the maintenance. | — |
Unstructured edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
Weighing both against staying on AWS Textract? Is AWS Textract free? What it actually costs →
Unstructured
Strengths
- +Widest input-format coverage of anything here
- +Consistent element output regardless of source format
- +Chunking strategies built in for RAG pipelines
- +Apache-2.0 open library
Trade-offs
- −Best-quality models sit in the paid hosted tier
- −Local install pulls in heavy system dependencies
- −Depth on complex PDFs is below Docling's
Marker
Strengths
- +Best PDF-to-Markdown fidelity of the options here
- +Handles equations, code blocks and complex tables well
- +Optional LLM pass for difficult pages
- +Runs entirely locally
Trade-offs
- −Not unconditionally open source — revenue-gated commercial terms
- −GPL-3.0 copyleft affects how you can distribute derived work
- −GPU strongly recommended for reasonable throughput
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Unstructured
if you want the source and the option to fork it, and widest input-format coverage of anything here.
Choose Marker
if best PDF-to-Markdown fidelity of the options here.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — best-quality models sit in the paid hosted tier, and not unconditionally open source — revenue-gated commercial terms. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
Unstructured vs Marker — common questions
Is Unstructured a better fit than Marker for document ai & ocr?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Unstructured scores 90 to Marker's 70 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Marker earns its place on a different axis — best PDF-to-Markdown fidelity of the options here. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Unstructured keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Marker is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host Unstructured or Marker?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are Unstructured and Marker both alternatives to AWS Textract?
Yes — both appear in our AWS Textract comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off AWS Textract and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-08-11. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.