We performed a comparison between HyperScience and IBM Datacap 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."What I liked more about HyperScience was the quality of the OCR it is a lot better compared to Google."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"Has algorithms that can detect a document template even if the image has a lot of distortions."
"I like that compared to other tools, HyperScience works best with handwritten documents."
"Valuable features include tools like IQ Bot and the ability to extract handwritten documents with 93-95 per cent accuracy."
"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."
"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."
"There's something that's very unique about IBM DataCap. It provides me with a good solution for extracting, reading the QR codes, and scanning them. In this stage, we are working in a UIT phase before implementing this protocol in all our branches. From my initial observation, IBM DataCap is good, it is not working too fast, but in a good manner for us."
"One of the valuable features of Datacap is the user experience. One thing that IBM did a few years ago was they standardized all of their ECM products on Content Navigator, including Datacap. If you're an IBM ECM customer you have FileNet, you have Datacap, you have StoredIQ and you have a consistent user experience, user interface."
"The most valuable features of IBM Datacap is the capturing and recognizing of pages, documents as well as the scanner and barcodes."
"It's a platform, not a configured application, so you can do what you want with it."
"The big thing these days is really the Insight Edition component and being able to build annotators to extract from literally unstructured content: paragraphs and information where there's no start anchor point to define where that data is located. There could be a number of entities in that which you have to draw information from. Being able to extract from them is really the differentiator today between that product and many of the other products..."
"Datacap is good at processing unstructured data. You can build up some nice data flows, and it is simple to configure. The tool adopts a low-code approach, but you can do a lot of coding if you want to customize and automate your flows. Datacap also has the flexibility to integrate."
"It is highly extensible, which we found to be most valuable. It is a very extensible solution because it is based on configurable rule sets. We were able to amend and adjust the solution and very easily add custom code and custom components. It does require some programming experience, but we found that not to be an issue. We liked its extensibility."
"The standout feature of this intelligent product is its remarkable capability."
"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."
"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."
"The solution lacks support for a greater range of languages."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
"HyperScience could improve the unstructured data extraction feature."
"They could work on the price and make it a bit more reasonable."
"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."
"Its weaknesses are primarily tied to the lack of available resources and expertise in the market to effectively support and provide solutions and services to each customer for seamless implementation. Expertise in this specific product is rare throughout the market. One key reason is the product's limited downloads. Additionally, archiving solutions are often perceived as complex and challenging, dissuading many companies from venturing into this domain. Consequently, partners who specialize in archiving solutions are always seeking straightforward, uncomplicated options that are easy to manage and meet customer expectations."
"There should be an increase in the capacity of the workflows. Datacap is a little limited in this aspect. So, you cannot really implement all the possibilities."
"We have page requirements where some values must be copied on each page. For example, say I need to scan a bunch of documents, and the name will be a field on every page. We don't have a default functionality in Datacap to copy the field value on the first page to all the pages. That feature would make the documents easy to prepare."
"One of the things that we wished for was to have an easier way to carry out the customizations. Currently, if you want to customize data, you need to have a developer with C# knowledge. If IBM could implement a no-code or low-code platform for Datacap, it would be easier to adjust it without needing a developer, which was always the most difficult part."
"The reading efficiency of the solution needs to be improved."
"Datacap has performance issues when processing large volumes of documents. We're doing 18,000 pages daily. Scanning takes almost 20-30 minutes, but it normally takes one or two minutes. We informed IBM and opened a ticket for that. They forwarded the issue to developers but didn't give a specific timeline for it to be resolved. Version 8.1 is already at the end of support."
"Recognition between certain numbers and letters could be improved. Sometimes this solution misreads five with an "S" for Singapore."
"Going forward, IBM needs to ensure that the output is perfect (as it can make the product) while staying true to platform's core."
HyperScience is ranked 5th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews while IBM Datacap is ranked 6th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 26 reviews. HyperScience is rated 7.6, while IBM Datacap is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of HyperScience writes "It has a lot of functionality, whatever we use, but a few things could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Datacap writes "The ability to connect this information with the appropriate database and recognize it irrespective of the format or source is an extremely valuable feature". HyperScience is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, UiPath, Instabase, Microsoft Power Automate and OpenText Intelligent Capture, whereas IBM Datacap is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, Microsoft Power Automate, Tungsten TotalAgility, OpenText Intelligent Capture and Hyland OnBase. See our HyperScience vs. IBM Datacap report.
See our list of best Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) 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.
