We performed a comparison between HyperScience and IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) 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."Valuable features include tools like IQ Bot and the ability to extract handwritten documents with 93-95 per cent accuracy."
"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."
"We have seen pretty good accuracy."
"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."
"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."
"I like that compared to other tools, HyperScience works best with handwritten documents."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate mundane tasks. This improves efficiency, reliability, etc. You can form critical operations which can be highly automated."
"It's integrated with all the other products within the Salesforce ecosystem."
"The feature I found most valuable is the TCO."
"The solution's ease of use is its most valuable aspect."
"Integrating the tool with SAP, EBS, or other ERPs is easy."
"IBM Robotic Process Automation has greatly improved the organization by improving the speed of performance, as the speed of the robot is estimated to be 20 times faster than the human being."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"It's user-friendly; even non-technical people can program bots using drag-and-drop functionalities."
"The solution lacks support for a greater range of languages."
"They could work on the price and make it a bit more reasonable."
"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."
"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 could improve the unstructured data extraction feature."
"Extracting tables from certain documents could be improved."
"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."
"We're based in Thailand, but the documentation is not in Thai, which makes it difficult for us. If they could translate all of their documentation into our language, we'd be very grateful."
"I would like to improve the efficiency of this solution and the Surface Level Agreement."
"There are certain limitations in the solution for screen reading."
"One of the things I would definitely like to see is more of the machine-learning and cognitive capabilities. For example, now that we're starting to automate more and more tasks, there are some things that still require us to go back and modify the robots when we need to. But if we had more of the machine-learning integrated into it, I believe it would be easier to maintain, so that we wouldn't have to go back and adjust every time."
"The product's document readers must be improved to capture the data well."
"I would like it to do pretty much everything out-of-the-box without any need for any customization. However, that is not the case right now. We absolutely have to do some amount of customization with the solution in order to use it out-of-the-box as-is."
"IBM should provide specific solutions for specific problems, like templates for invoicing processes, or general templates for creating efficient processes."
"This RPA should be under the umbrella of BPM. This is what the future should be."
More IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Pricing and Cost Advice →
HyperScience is ranked 5th in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) with 7 reviews while IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is ranked 6th in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 23 reviews. HyperScience is rated 7.6, while IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is rated 8.2. 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 IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) writes "User-friendly interface and good stability". HyperScience is most compared with ABBYY Vantage, UiPath, Instabase, Microsoft Power Automate and Tungsten RPA, whereas IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is most compared with UiPath, Microsoft Power Automate, Automation Anywhere (AA), Blue Prism and IPsoft 1RPA. See our HyperScience vs. IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) 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.