We performed a comparison between HyperScience and Microsoft Power Automate based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Robotic Process Automation (RPA) 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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Valuable features include tools like IQ Bot and the ability to extract handwritten documents with 93-95 per cent accuracy."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"This solution improved the reporting in our organization. The financial department was doing a lot of copy pasting from different sources to create financial reports. Through ProcessRobot, we were able to automate all those copy pasting and produce all those financial reports overnight."
"The most valuable feature is that you can run multiple automations at the same time, in parallel."
"Its integration with SharePoint and Outlook is the most valuable. I found it very easy to use. I could do everything that I wanted very quickly, and I didn't have any complications at all. I never had a problem in using Microsoft Power Automate."
"You can create a flow, and it can be shared across different environments."
"The best part is the automated workflow, which is quite good and easy. It is just drag-and-drop. We are able to create workflows quite quickly. We are able to directly integrate the data that it generates with Power BI dashboards. Its integration is quite good with other Microsoft tools, such as Power BI. The visualization of the data has become helpful for us."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Power Automate are user-friendliness and low coding functionality."
"I like the scalability option and the simplicity, the way we can really use the interface to easily scale up."
"They could work on the price and make it a bit more reasonable."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
"HyperScience could improve the unstructured data extraction feature."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is complex and has room for improvement."
"It is mostly integrated with the Microsoft environment. Unlike UiPath, we cannot really use external tools with Microsoft Power Automate. There should be a possibility to integrate it with external tools or systems."
"Microsoft shouldn't charge extra for the database license if you want to store the data in the database during the trial. We wanted to have a historical trend of the data, and we started with the trial version of the tool. The database license is not included with the trial version, and you have to purchase it separately. Because we had a budget constraint, we had to pull all the information manually from the system, massage it, and push it to the dashboard. About two months ago, we have upgraded to the full-fledged version in which the database is integrated. The database license should be there in the trial version, but they have totally decoupled it. They should have provided a bundle, at least for the trial version, so that once a person or a firm gets a sense of it, they can start building. It might be because they wanted to sell additional licenses or premium licenses, and that's why they have added it in the premium version. It should have more cognitive features. Automation Anywhere and UiPath are different because they have cognitive functionality plus intelligent automation. The cognitive functionality is currently not there in Microsoft Power Automate. It is just for workflow automation and basic bot-level tasks. It should have more cognitive features, which probably will be launched in a couple of years."
"They can provide a deeper level of feedback about running processes. When I compare it to Blue Prism, the control room has slightly less information about the running processes and possible errors. I'm not a pro, so I am not entirely sure if this is a core feature of the product or if it is because of the way our partners have developed it or set it up."
"I need to have more integration capabilities from this solution."
"It would be good to have some kind of on-premises solution for BPMN users, but I don't think Microsoft will ever go back to the on-premises solution. They all train their clients to use their online services. It is easy, but it doesn't follow the industry-wide standards. I can only use the processes that Microsoft gives us. I can't map a business process by using other standards or notations, such as Business Process Management (BPM). I have to use whatever Microsoft gives us. I would like to have support for some standards because if we decide to use another BPM tomorrow, we will have to remap everything in notation to transfer from this solution. This is the only block or obstacle that I see in using this solution. It is closed in its infrastructure."
"It would be great if it was able to integrate more with various other platforms. It would make development easier."
"Inability to use a lot of connectors without having a premium license."
HyperScience is ranked 5th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews while Microsoft Power Automate is ranked 2nd in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 123 reviews. HyperScience is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Power Automate is rated 7.8. 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 Microsoft Power Automate writes "Provides valuable integration with other Microsoft tools". HyperScience is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, UiPath, Instabase, Tungsten RPA and IBM Datacap, whereas Microsoft Power Automate is most compared with UiPath, Automation Anywhere (AA), Blue Prism, IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and Tungsten RPA. See our HyperScience vs. Microsoft Power Automate report.
See our list of best Robotic Process Automation (RPA) vendors.
We monitor all Robotic Process Automation (RPA) 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.
