We performed a comparison between Grooper and HyperScience based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about ABBYY, Automation Anywhere, UiPath and others in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP)."Grooper processes difficult sorts of data and unstructured or semi-structured content very well. It's probably one of the better solutions I've seen compared to other solutions I've seen out there. It does a lot more things like segmentation extraction. It does it a lot better. Grooper has more focus on these types of freeform documents where other solutions are very generic and this is a little more elaborate in what they've done. I think they take it to the next level of extracting freeform data."
"The user interface is easy to use, and the flexibility is noteworthy."
"Lexicons where the key vocabulary can be inputted it is very helpful."
"There are many options and customizations that you can make to each individual extractor that allows you to tweak it for exactly what you need."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"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."
"Has algorithms that can detect a document template even if the image has a lot of distortions."
"What I liked more about HyperScience was the quality of the OCR it is a lot better compared to Google."
"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."
"Grooper is new. It's new beta stuff, so we've had some issues, but that's understandable. Getting the beta product to more of a true release is where it needs improvement. I'm going through training now, so it's hard to judge what they have and don't have until I get through that training. Training is the main thing for me because I'm trying to learn and take things I've learned from other products and try to transfer that knowledge to this one."
"They should have more sub-extractors or exclusion extractors so that the user does not have to make a parent data type."
"If Grooper could "sense" important fields on the document and auto-build extractors for them, that'd be really cool."
"Technical support is definitely an area that they need improvement in, in terms of the front-line individuals."
"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."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
"The solution lacks support for a greater range of languages."
"HyperScience could improve the unstructured data extraction 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."
Earn 20 points
Grooper is ranked 21st in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) while HyperScience is ranked 6th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews. Grooper is rated 8.6, while HyperScience is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Grooper writes "Good data ingestion and classification capabilities, supports various media types and formats, and the interface is easy to use". 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". Grooper is most compared with , whereas HyperScience is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, UiPath, Instabase, Microsoft Power Automate and Tungsten RPA.
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.