We performed a comparison between ABBYY Vantage and HyperScience based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its ease of use is valuable. It is easy to use and configure."
"Abbyy is really good in terms of reading OCR."
"The OCR is the best on the market."
"The solution responds well to automatic document classifications with a 90% success rate."
"Identifies and extract relevant elements from a document."
"The initial setup is not difficult. The vendor provides technical documents to assist with deployment."
"There are a lot of options in ABBYY FlexiCapture, and it is very vast. I have worked with multiple OCR tools, and I found ABBYY FlexiCapture to be the most accurate tool."
"The whole idea of designing your own templates is pretty much the bread and butter of the product, but that's really the best part because you can design flexible templates."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"Valuable features include tools like IQ Bot and the ability to extract handwritten documents with 93-95 per cent accuracy."
"What I liked more about HyperScience was the quality of the OCR it is a lot better compared to Google."
"I like that compared to other tools, HyperScience works best with handwritten documents."
"Has algorithms that can detect a document template even if the image has a lot of distortions."
"One of the most valuable features of HyperScience is the user-training module. Whenever the extraction takes place, based on the way we have trained HyperScience, it would give us some success status or a certain confidence level. If the solution has processed something that it determined was not extracted correctly it will queue those items for manual review."
"It provides the best accuracy for handwritten forms, which is a struggle in the industry. You can take processes with a lot of manual work and streamline them through this tool."
"Programming interfaces should include intelligence or documentation."
"I think that technical support should help instead of developing a solution from scratch every time you reach out to them."
"Initially, it was good, but now, in terms of ease of implementation and accuracy, there are better competitors in the market. What we are seeing in some of the other tools isn't there in ABBYY. They have to improve it to include such features. Otherwise, it will be difficult for them to compete in the market."
"They can have more advanced workflows. They can have some custom status in their workflow. It was there, but they can introduce more cases such as triggering an email or interacting with other systems with APIs. They can be included as stages in their workflow rather than doing it all by scripting."
"Their tutorials are not enough. They can improve the tutorials and maybe add more examples in their tutorials. Currently, if you want to learn ABBYY technology, it is very difficult. There are just a few resources, such as YouTube channels and blogs. There are not many resources for learning ABBYY."
"The recognition intelligence could improve by having more details in the documents. There are limitations with the forms, templates, and manuscripts."
"This solution could be improved by offering better integration with other platforms."
"The product must provide more supporting documentation on the API capabilities of Advanced Designer."
"The solution lacks support for a greater range of languages."
"No solution is perfect and there are several different scenarios that could be improved in HyperScience. One area is where there are multiple tables in the same form I have seen HyperScience struggle. There is some issue with supporting the extraction from multiple tables involved on the same form. If this could improve, it would be a big benefit."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
"They could work on the price and make it a bit more reasonable."
"HyperScience could improve the unstructured data extraction feature."
"HyperScience has less capability while working on unstructured forms. Unstructured forms are those where there is no standard structure and the information can be anywhere on the form. They need to develop this capability."
"The product's usability could be better. The first pain point is that we're getting the output in a different format, and we were expecting a different timetable. The second point is that if you want better results, HyperScience says you have to configure a minimal PDF or a maximum of 400 PDFs. If you want results with 400 PDFs for what's written by these doctors, then you also configure the maximum of 400 templates for that. So, it's essentially a lack of support from HyperScience. In the next release, it would be better if failure scenarios were reduced. It would also help if they offered different formats, inputs or injections, and added different scenarios."
ABBYY Vantage is ranked 1st in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 46 reviews while HyperScience is ranked 6th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews. ABBYY Vantage is rated 8.0, while HyperScience is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of ABBYY Vantage writes "Genius-level AI with very easy setup and implementation processes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HyperScience writes "It has a lot of functionality, whatever we use, but a few things could be improved". ABBYY Vantage is most compared with UiPath Document Understanding, UiPath, Microsoft Power Automate, Tungsten TotalAgility and OpenText Intelligent Capture, whereas HyperScience is most compared with UiPath, Instabase, Microsoft Power Automate, Tungsten RPA and IBM Datacap. See our ABBYY Vantage vs. HyperScience report.
See our list of best Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) vendors and best Robotic Process Automation (RPA) vendors.
We monitor all Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.