Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Ephesoft Transact vs Tungsten RPA comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Ephesoft Transact
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (14th)
Tungsten RPA
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (10th)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2155206 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Development Consultant at a hospitality company with 1-10 employees
Average solution with good workflow but needs to improve machine learning
The configuration can be a bit much. The AML engine part could be better. It's not easy to train. It's not so easy to train the system. If it's not trained, the accuracy will be off. They need to improve data quality. They need to start from scratch with the AML. They need to add on the document processing tool. It's getting there; it just need to be expanded. I haven't used the reporting too much. However, it would be helpful to have it more robust. The solution does require a lot of RAM.
Mahmoud Alyabroudi - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Architect at DEWA
A n automation solution with OCR and scanner
Tungsten RPA features enhanced desktop automation capabilities, improved Active Directory integration, and upgraded recorder functionality. These updates will be available in the upcoming release. Firstly, The first level of support needs enhancement. When you open a ticket with Tungsten, they inquire about various aspects of the issue. The initial support level should involve conducting a Webex meeting to address and assess the reported issues within the environment directly. This would involve thoroughly checking the issues and logs, among other relevant factors. It may require a minor configuration adjustment that could be resolved promptly during the session. There are several challenges associated with Tungsten RPA. Firstly, there is often a perception issue among employees who may believe that RPA is intended to replace their jobs rather than enhance efficiency. This misconception can hinder the adoption of RPA solutions in the workplace, as employees may resist the implementation of automation technologies. Secondly, there have been challenges related to integrating Tungsten RPA with applications built on Java. Many issues have been addressed and resolved in V11.3, thus improving the compatibility of Tungsten RPA with Java-based applications and major challenges.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Transact's best feature is its ease of customization."
"I have found the keyword extraction to be helpful."
"I like the inject feature. With desktop injects, we're doing all these things and extracting these things. Its stable, scalable, and technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of Kofax RPA is the simplicity of automating tasks."
"The OCR was quite stable and flexible."
"Kofax RPA's best feature is its high success percentage in picking up information from documents, especially where the DPI is really low."
"You can automate browsing tasks without needing a server connection. The platform provides its browser, allowing you to run anything inside it."
"The product saves time and resources."
"Initially, the most effective features for process automation were website automation related to web auditing, SharePoint implementations, and automated management of information."
"If you don't have a computer science background, you can easily use Tungsten RPA because this is a low-code platform and it is easier than other RPA tools."
"The pricing of the solution is quite good."
 

Cons

"Transact could be improved by removing Java and making its pricing more accessible for smaller customers."
"Their email service and extraction could be better. We get the input via email, and these emails contain different types of documents like Excel, PDF, or they may contain different content in the email body. Due to this variation, sometimes the email service crashes, and emails aren't redirected to Ephesoft Transact. Ephesoft has provided us with new hotfixes. Whatever flaws we found in the 2019.2 version, they have already updated it in the new version, 20.1.05, and it's already released. Drawbacks like not capturing the handwritten fields are now sorted."
"It's not easy to train."
"Kofax RPA's UI could be more user-friendly."
"The product needs more AI capabilities."
"Exception handling needs to be improved."
"Automating systems based on Citrix, where using AI or OCR-based capture of a screen, presents challenges."
"The solution could use some AI integrated features."
"Kofax RPA needs to improve integration with SAP and Microsoft. The professional services offered by the tool's team is below par. Its licensing needs to be more modular."
"It needs a free training portal for anybody on the internet to use so that they can get an idea of what the possibilities are."
"I'd like to see a recording function and a more simple interface."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Transact's pricing could be better for smaller customers."
"Initially, when I got a licensed copy of Ephesoft Transact, it was for one year. After one year, we had to send an email to the Ephesoft team informing them that our license was going to expire. They updated it and provided one license in our file, and we had to update and install the folder. They have versions for one year and lifelong as well."
"Kofax RPA's licensing costs are yearly and expensive."
"The cost depends on the number of licenses and the number of RPAs."
"The normal price for an on-premises license is €50,000. That's the price for one robot license. You can have more than one robot license but only one can be run at any one time. I believe the cost of adding a second robot is around €14,000."
"I don't have complete insight at this point in time, but I would guess that Kofax is a lot less expensive than Automation Anywhere. I would expect its license to be on a yearly basis."
"Price is not a problem, because they are a competitor and we have a special rate."
"The solution’s license is not expensive."
"There is a standard license needed to use Kofax RPA and the price is reasonable."
"Kofax RPA is moderately priced but expensive in comparison to UiPath and Power Automate."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Robotic Process Automation (RPA) solutions are best for your needs.
884,122 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Government
14%
Performing Arts
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Performing Arts
8%
Retailer
6%
Outsourcing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise18
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kofax RPA?
I am not a user of Tungsten RPA; I sell this product for our company.
What needs improvement with Kofax RPA?
The negative side is that UiPath has a really large community on the RPA side, and Tungsten RPA doesn't have any community for the developer side, which is a red flag for us and for customers.
What is your primary use case for Kofax RPA?
Tungsten RPA reduces manual work, especially in financial services and HR solutions.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Kofax RPA, Kofax Kapow, Kapow
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Honda Logistics, Washington State Health Care Authority
Aetna, BNP Paribas, Citi, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, ING, Aviva, Humana, Willis, Merck, University Hospitals, CardinalHealth, American Red Cross, Alegri, Capita
Find out what your peers are saying about Ephesoft Transact vs. Tungsten RPA and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,122 professionals have used our research since 2012.