We performed a comparison between Blue Prism and HyperScience 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."Although the solution may look complicated it actually has a lot of features and user space to work out of."
"The most valuable improvement in utilizing process automation is the cost savings, but we have also had cases where the customer experience is enhanced."
"We've started to use some of the new features such as translation, cognitive, and we are finding them useful. We are also finding API integrations very useful."
"If there is a task that Blue Prism cannot do out of the box, Blue Prism provides me the facility of designing one and integrating it into the application. This process is called Visual Basic Objects."
"Blue Prism is stable enough."
"The tool is very technically sound."
"The web-based designer is very user-friendly and easy to use."
"Mostly we use the Design Studio to develop the automation. It's great. We put them into deployment and have the automated process running. It's essentially the Design Studio for Blue Prism and the entire methodology of delivery that is the most useful or valuable to us."
"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."
"Valuable features include tools like IQ Bot and the ability to extract handwritten documents with 93-95 per cent accuracy."
"Has algorithms that can detect a document template even if the image has a lot of distortions."
"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."
"I like that compared to other tools, HyperScience works best with handwritten documents."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"What I liked more about HyperScience was the quality of the OCR it is a lot better compared to Google."
"The control room is its worst feature. It can be laggy, and it is not as user-friendly. We're with staying Blue Prism, but we're moving it from on-premises to Microsoft cloud for cost savings. We looked into Blue Prism cloud. It has a lot of features, but it comes with a lot of costs. Right now, we have six spots, and we're only at 13% utilization. The cost didn't really weigh out for us for moving to Blue Prism cloud, but on-premises, it is working for what we need."
"For developers, they should have some kind of recording feature."
"My clients report that there is a little bit of a challenge regarding the cost-benefit ratio."
"The solution is not user-friendly. It has a very high learning curve."
"The activities that we do are a bit difficult to do in Blue Prism as compared to UiPath. UiPath provides create activities and create packages related to AI analytical skills. This is something that Blue Prism doesn't have."
"Blue Prism develops its own tools and process automation, but the documentation is unclear and incomplete."
"The scalability has to do with the latency of what you're connecting to. And so if you're connecting to something that isn't particularly scalable, it doesn't matter how many robots you scale out. You're constrained by the latency and the size of the application or solution or service that the robot is using."
"They can add a reporting feature."
"They could work on the price and make it a bit more reasonable."
"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."
"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 solution lacks support for a greater range of languages."
"HyperScience could improve the unstructured data extraction feature."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
Blue Prism is ranked 4th in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 84 reviews while HyperScience is ranked 5th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews. Blue Prism is rated 7.8, while HyperScience is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Blue Prism writes "Way more efficient for debugging than other tools but the UI is complicated". 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". Blue Prism is most compared with Microsoft Power Automate, UiPath, Automation Anywhere (AA), Pega Robotic Process Automation and Tungsten RPA, whereas HyperScience is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, UiPath, Instabase, Microsoft Power Automate and Tungsten RPA. See our Blue Prism vs. HyperScience 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.