Visual speech recognition (VSR) models now surpass human lipreaders on benchmarks, but do such gains establish human-like visual speech perception? To explore this, we compare three VSR systems with human baselines on the MaFI word-level lipreading dataset using word, character, phoneme, and viseme-level metrics. Although models achieve higher overall accuracy, they succeed and fail on different words than humans. A text-only n-gram baseline given only a few initial phonemes rivals human lipreading. VSR word-level errors are consistently better explained by training word frequency than by the visual informativeness of words. Viseme accuracies, confusion matrices and human-model correlations further show that models gain most on visemes humans find hardest, and show much weaker dependence on visual clarity. Our work demonstrates that VSR systems rely primarily on language cues from training data rather than visual perception, failing to bind visual features into meaningful words.