We performed a comparison between Edgeverve AssistEdge Cloud RPA and HyperScience based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about UiPath, Microsoft, Automation Anywhere and others in Robotic Process Automation (RPA)."I would say that the cross-integration between different modules, such as between the OCR, RPA, and ML, is the most valuable feature."
"What I liked more about HyperScience was the quality of the OCR it is a lot better compared to Google."
"Valuable features include tools like IQ Bot and the ability to extract handwritten documents with 93-95 per cent accuracy."
"I like that compared to other tools, HyperScience works best with handwritten documents."
"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."
"Has algorithms that can detect a document template even if the image has a lot of distortions."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"Better training and better accessibility of the tools are the things that need to be improved."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"They could work on the price and make it a bit more reasonable."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Edgeverve AssistEdge Cloud RPA is ranked 42nd in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) while HyperScience is ranked 5th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews. Edgeverve AssistEdge Cloud RPA is rated 6.0, while HyperScience is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Edgeverve AssistEdge Cloud RPA writes "Stable with good cross-integration between modules, but the training needs to be improved". 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". Edgeverve AssistEdge Cloud RPA is most compared with Microsoft Power Automate, whereas HyperScience is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, UiPath, Instabase, Microsoft Power Automate and Tungsten RPA.
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.