ABBYY Vantage Reviews

We need to understand ABBYY Vantage to add some projects and push them to our customers.

I have worked on many different OCR extraction tools, like document understanding, which uses ML technology. Compared to other tools, ABBYY Vantage is better because it's very user-friendly. It has a wide variety where we can manipulate or code the document as per our specifications, like OCR or many more specifications.

Since we are using a trial version, we don't have administration access to create a tenant to integrate my OCR series with Postman. Right now, we are doing one POC, and to complete that POC, we need that access because it's a requirement.

I have been using ABBYY Vantage for a couple of months.

In my team, three to four people are using ABBYY Vantage.

Our experience with our FlexiCapture was good. In FlexiCapture, you have to create templates because it does not use ML or AI technology. We learned that ABBYY Vantage uses ML technology, and we want to explore it.

ABBYY Vantage's initial setup is very beautiful. We didn't face any hurdles during the setup.

The solution is deployed on ABBYY cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate ABBYY Vantage an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to develop structures for automatically reading customer documents. We produce the document definition for each layup and send data to customers. We have 40-50 developers using the solution in various departments. 

In the future, we will use the solution for automatic classifications of documents. 

The solution responds well to automatic document classifications with a 90% success rate. 

There are sometimes issues with calculations or integrations with the server when running multiple products with different languages. This causes data to not display properly in data fields. 

The system does not always train itself to recognize data properly from system leads. 

A more comprehensive training program should be available because free training books do not provide the level of detail needed. Sometimes, we encounter issues with an automatization but cannot resolve it even though we completed the associated training module. Training for particular scenarios need to be included in modules because integrations can be tricky or complex without these details. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

We had one issue with speed where we could not achieve the minimum time for processing which should have been seconds. Otherwise, the solution is really fast with basic or fixed processing. 

Support does not answer tickets in a timely manner but eventually closes questions. 

For example, I have a few tickets for assistance with DVP, data pages, and working with multiple languages but support has not yet responded adequately to the email inquiries. I would like detailed information and an explanation for whether a shadow case can be used. I cannot authenticate, determine if available onloads would fix captures, or integrate without proper answers. 

Support should respond quickly to production issues. Time zones are an issue in getting responses because support works on Russian time. 

Support should have access to prior tickets to get a cumulative picture of issues a user has experienced. Generally, they do not have details from prior tickets to inform solutions so they base their answers on only the current ticket. Having cumulative knowledge will allow support to better understand a customer's situation and use case. 

I rate support a six out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup can be complex because it takes time to learn all the menu options. Our setup took one or two months because we wanted to ensure it was done properly. We do not use many of the menu options as our use case is rather basic. 

The help page is not very comprehensive or detailed. It uses code that is formal and the world is now more informal so some options might confuse users.

I have not evaluated other options. 

The solution is a good product but there is always room for improvement. I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use Vantage for invoices and purchase orders. We have around eight members using it. It's good for the document types we use. I don't think we use many of the available skills. We use the invoices and purchase orders because that's what we need for our in-house product. We might use it in the future for remittances, 

The key fields that must be captured from a particular financial document are validated. This usually gives us 80-85 percent accuracy, which is good compared to other OCR tools. 

They're constantly adding patches that fix all those issues. They make improvements on the back end. ABBYY has made many enhancements recently. The address-conversion features are critical. It automatically converts the city and state name into the ZIP code.  That's a crucial feature we wanted that they've implemented.

Integration is very easy. There are lots of connectors. 

I would like better language support for Hebrew and Arabic. They're still working on that, and we might get an update by the end of this year. There is currently no support for those two languages because they write from the right to the left side. It would be great if they could add this as soon as possible because we have customers from the Middle East and Israel. 

We might need more machine learning or cluster things for ABBYY to learn from that and improve accuracy. There's a difference when you go into the invoices. If you have one template, we need one sample to clean it, but a purchase order may need a minimum of five samples. That's something I've noticed, but they might need to improve the machine learning. Generally, ABBYY's accuracy is better than other tools.

I've been working with ABBYY Vantage for nearly four years.

Vantage performs much faster than other OCR tools.

Vantage is scalable. We can integrate it with AI, ChatGPT, and RP tools. They have connectors. 

I rate ABBYY support nine out of 10. We reach out to them when we have issues that we cannot find solutions to on the community portal. They help us with the code and are always willing to hop on a call if needed.

Positive

Deploying Vantage is simple once we have access. To integrate it with our product, we only need to add the user IDs and passwords. We also need to write some code based on our requirements. It isn't very complicated. We previously used ABBYY FlexiCapture, but today, most of our clients use Vantage, so we use the latest cloud version of ABBYY Vantage.

ABBYY is continuously updating things, but we retain backups for 14 days in case anything happens, so it doesn't affect our end-to-end automation. Generally, it doesn't require much maintenance. 

I rate ABBYY Vantage eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others. We have some things we'd like to improve, but they will probably implement these improvements in the near future. 

ABBYY's machine learning requires a lot of training for some skills, but it's not much compared to other OCR tools. You can train a template using three or four samples, but with others, it has to go up to 10. The AI of other OCR tools is not good compared to ABBYY. However, they should add support for Arabic and Hebrew as soon as possible.

The solution is used mostly for form extraction, fixed form extraction, text forms, data extraction, OCR, et cetera. We use it for digital document processing.

We run software that does basically business process automation. It's given us a form extraction utility to add. We're utilizing the ATR in the FlexiCapture engine, and in that way, we can use the FlexiCapture engine to process forms. Any forms that contain data, we can extract.

Without that, we would have to use pattern extraction, regular expressions, and things like that. This is a forms processing engine, which allows us to be able to set anchors and OCR values, et cetera. 

The form extractions engine and the FlexiCapture designer are really useful.

The solution is easy to set up.

We have found the solution to be stable so far. 

The product is extremely scalable. 

The UI is okay, however, I remember the scanning and the way that you actually get documents into the system. The FlexiCapture, what they call a process developer, could use some work.

The solution needs more web or cloud-based development. Cloud-based FlexiCapture development would be great.

The on-premise web version doesn't seem to be intuitive or easy to use or install. It's not user-friendly.

Technical support is slow to respond.

The pricing is a bit high and we are looking into other options. 

I've been using the solution for three years now. I've used it for a while. 

The stability is good. It's a reliable solution. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales very, very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. 

We have about ten users on the solution right now. They are mostly developers and consultants. 

Technical support could be better. once you create a ticket, it takes some time for them to respond, from a partner perspective. You send a ticket to an email address. There's no phone number. You can send it to support@abbyy.com and you have to wait. 

They do have a fairly thorough knowledge base. There are also available videos on YouTube. However, if you're having complex problems, it can take sometimes days for them to respond. If you're running a professional system, that's not going to cut it.

I don't know if they have level levels of support, and we have maybe just a really poor version of the support system. I can imagine that, if you pay for a really high level of support, then, of course, they're available. That said, from our perspective, being a partner developer, we've had problems with the support, for sure. If you pay for Professional Services hours, it would be my assumption that they would respond right away, however.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. It was not too complex or overly difficult. 

Licensing is paid on a yearly basis. I don't know the exact price of everything, however, I do know that it is expensive from the perspective of our management team. We've also been looking for other solutions.

We are a partner with ABBYY.

I'm using version 12. I believe it is the latest version. I haven't seen any updates as of recently. There could be a version 14 out, however, I'm not sure. We're using the desktop version. 

I would advise those considering the solution to watch the YouTube lessons and pay for Professional Services training and assistance. 

At this point, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use this solution mostly for processing Brazilian servicing invoices and personnel documents and contracts, such as personnel ID cards.

I am a strategic partner of ABBYY here in Brazil. I deploy this solution for the customers. We mostly deploy it on a customer's cloud infrastructure. It is not the cloud side from ABBYY. It is like on-premises, but it is in the cloud of the customers.

Most of our customers work with RPA. On the cognition side, you have to look at the document and also create some intelligent rules to validate the data from the document. We give the bots the ability to put documents to be processed, and then the bots give back the results to move on to the next task in the process. In the process on which bots are working, there are two high-value workflows that require finding things and using judgment. Both are conditional logic.

When talking about documents, RPA can read the full text of the document, but it cannot understand the rules of a document as a human does. This is something ABBYY can do very easily. You put some rules in the ABBYY task, and ABBYY will say, "Okay, so this invoice is $20, and 10% tax is $2." If the tax is $3, ABBYY will say, "Look! There is a mistake here with this tax amount." ABBYY is able to understand the content and the context of the document and give it back to the RPA to go on with the task.

The most valuable feature is the ability to scale for big processes. We are able to process 1 million pages a day. Its accuracy is also very nice. It is a good feature that they have. 

It is an independent platform, which is its biggest advantage as compared to other solutions. It is also very stable and powerful. It is 100% on time.

They should improve the RESTful API side of this solution. Currently, fully RESTful API is not available in the on-prem version, which is really a problem, and we have to work around this limitation. The cloud version already has a fully RESTful API, but the on-prem version doesn't have a fully RESTful API, which is a big mistake. It is easy to solve, but they aren't solving it quicker. They are taking a long time. Nowadays, most people don't go to the interface. They like to use RESTful API.

I have been using this solution for about 20 years.

It is very stable and powerful. 

It is easily scalable. It is for all kinds of customers. Our customers are small, medium, and large businesses. RPAs are used in all kinds of organizations nowadays, and documents are always involved. RPAs are used even for testing and learning, and documents are always a problem.

Our clients do plan to increase the usage of this solution in the future. FlexiCapture is able to scale or spread in the department without having the need for any other RPA tool or AI tool.

They are very good and fast. If you find any vulnerability or there is an issue in scaling this solution, they are very fast in fixing the issue.

It is very easy to deploy but only after we have handled the security side of the customer. It is not complex, but, like any other server-based solution, things have to be clarified with the security team and the IT team. The biggest friction is not involving all the teams from the customer side, especially the security teams.

Our implementation strategy is to involve everyone two or three months before. This is because the businesses that purchase the solution sometimes don't have a good relationship with the IT team. We go to a workshop with them and try to understand their concerns, which takes two or three days. Its installation takes one or two days.

Our clients evaluate Kofax, UiPath, Brainware, and Nuance. The competition is big here. FlexiCapture is the most independent solution. It is an independent platform, which is its biggest advantage. You are not dependent on other solutions. In UiPath, you depend on scaling the RPA to spread OCR.

I would highly recommend this solution. My advice is to engage with a professional services provider at the beginning for installation, deployment, and training. Don't try to do it on your own because it is a very powerful and big solution. You'll have to learn it before you try to use it. Don't do it yourself. 

I would rate ABBYY FlexiCapture a nine out of ten. It is missing only RESTful API.

I work with document automation where we have to create settings to understand if all the documents are there to be processed or if there is something missing. I gather the data from these documents, making them available for any automation like UiPath.

I like that it has the capability of processing a high volume of documents with great accuracy, and also the possibility of creating layers with APIs and robotic process automation. We can use these layers to connect and create an automation for the data that are available from the paper source or document source.

They have a product called Mobile Web Capture that connects with ABBYY FlexiCapture and it is a separate feature. I think they should embed Mobile Web Capture as a standard feature.

I have been using ABBYY Flexi Capture for the past ten years.

ABBYY FlexiCapture is stable.

There is no other IDP solution able to scale as ABBYY FlexiCapture. They don't only have the OCR and the ability to contextualize it, but the ability to scale and process million of pages, I have not seen anything like it in the market.

When you reach technical support for some idea of writitng simple scripts, they want you to speak to professional services. There are two parts to technical support. One is the professional service team where you are charged every time you try to reach them. And the other is the support. The support should be able to give the most basic information to the customers like simple scripts. They are not allowed to provide simple funciotnalities scripts. You have to contact the professional sales team. Many of these small problems can be solved quickly by technical support. 

Professional Services know everything you need about the tool.

Positive

Setup is easy. There are some specific jobs that need some scripts to call the functionalities of this solution. You do not have a map to follow how-to read some specific functionalities. But most of our processes, ninety-five percent of them, we were able to process and create from the tool itself, the user interface, and by adding some simple scripts.

You can trust ABBYY FlexiCapture. It is a smart solution and has many functionalities. I can recommend instead other low-cost and no-cost solutions. 

You can not compare ABBYY FlexiCapture with anything else on the market. On a scale of one to ten, I rate ABBYY FlexiCapture a ten.

The advantage of this tool is that it is a proven product. A lot of other products are quite new in the market.

Initially, it was good, but now, in terms of ease of implementation and accuracy, there are better competitors in the market. What we are seeing in some of the other tools isn't there in ABBYY. They have to improve it to include such features. Otherwise, it will be difficult for them to compete in the market.

There is more ease of implementation in new products. The time taken to extract the information is less in new products. We should be able to have a very light implementation. I have seen other products where you don't have to install anything, and everything works on the cloud as a service.

Similarly, there are difficulties with some of the documents, but there are some for which it works out. ABBYY should be definitely looking into that.

It has been more than three years.

Based on the implementation experience we have, it is scalable, and there is no doubt about it.

I don't have much experience with them. I only contacted their support team for something related to their training.

There is no doubt that it is a good tool, but you need to think about what is your goal and what you want to use it for in the long term. When we started, this was the only intelligent document-processing company available, but now, there are a number of players in the market. We came to know very recently that they have a higher success rate than this one. So, you have to evaluate according to your needs. 

I would rate it a six out of ten.

We are an implementor and we create solutions for our clients. One of the products that we use is ABBYY FlexiCapture.

We are currently implementing a use case for capturing bank statements. Using ABBYY FlexiCapture, we are working to capture the check statements with different fonts that include the value, payee name, and date of birth.

This product makes intelligent automatic documentation predictions, and for our use case and what we are targeting, the accuracy is 90%.

The most valuable feature is the accuracy of document extraction. If you compare it to other applications, such as IQ Bot, or products on AWS, FlexiCapture is much better.

The accuracy changes depending on the scenario so you need to test it before committing to this solution.

The is a stable product.

FlexiCapture is scalable. 

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

I also use IQ Bot and UiPath. ABBYY is easier to use than these other products.

The initial setup is not difficult. The vendor provides technical documents to assist with deployment. It normally takes a few days to deploy but if there are a lot of configurations, for example with all of the network-related stuff, it takes more time.

For the deployment, between three and five people are enough. The maintenance can be handled by two people.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is to start with a PoC. They need to see whether it's feasible and can handle the documents that they want to capture. Before entering into an agreement to purchase the product, try different samples and different scenarios because the accuracy is different.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.