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

Automation Hero vs IQ Bot [EOL] comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

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

Automation Hero
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) (35th)
IQ Bot [EOL]
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Intern at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Good dashboard with easy tracking feature; lacks sufficient templates
Our use case of this product is for invoice processing. We tested it on a small project to get a comparison with UiPath. I am a user of this product and an intern in the company.  It's great that the solution doesn't require coding. If you input an invoice, it reads all the fields automatically…
RP
Director of Global Automation at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Valuable connectivity and coherent solutions simplify maintenance but require cost adjustments for industry-based needs
There are areas of improvement, especially in having industry-based solutions that we could easily tap on. It would help reduce the time spent on feeding information and creating outputs. More flexibility and specific models for specific purposes would be beneficial. Additionally, pricing is a concern as IQ Bot is considered costly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Dashboard is good and the product doesn't require coding."
"IQ Bot's most valuable feature is data migration, including Word format and legacy document templates."
"The most valuable feature is the cognitive, self-learning component that understands the undefined templates."
"The way that the learning combines with the OCR is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The most valuable feature of IQ Bot is the Discovery Bots. They can detect and analyze for improvements."
"PDF classification and basic data extraction are useful features."
"IQ Bot has the ability to easily capture objects. The latest version is far ahead of the competition. Most of the features are excellent, valuable, and easy to handle."
"I can train all the instances and properly adjust, inject Python code to find entities, and so on, and so forth."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use and the new feature that makes it possible to integrate the platform with Google."
 

Cons

"Lacks sufficient keywords and templates."
"It would be helpful if the IQ Bot OCR could be integrated with third-party solutions like FlexiCapture."
"The process of manually correcting the data in the validation queue that IQ Bot failed to extract should be automated."
"I think the problem is usually tuning it up, and trying to get the best performance — that takes some time."
"IQ Bot uses an API OCR engine. At times, they can't accommodate some text in Korean. Also, Korean characters are not cognitive at times."
"There should be built-in or native intelligent processing capabilities."
"The success rate must be improved."
"It's not intuitive from a user standpoint."
"Machine learning capabilities would be beneficial to have."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It has an average cost."
"Pricing for IQ Bot isn't good because if you're paying a lot and you're still getting some problems from it, then you can't give it a good rating. You have to compare how much you're taking out of your pocket with what you're getting from the solution. For example, I have a client paying $30 or $40 for the solution, but sometimes, he's still getting exceptions or errors from it. The cost of IQ Bot is too high, so people are hesitant to purchase the license for it. On a scale of one to five, with one being expensive, and five being affordable, I'm giving IQ Bot pricing a one."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis, and I am happy with the pricing."
"The solution’s hardware cost is high."
"It is based on the stages and on a yearly basis."
"Pricing is highly confidential because it is something that can be negotiated."
"With the Cloud, the price goes up and down. You only pay for what you use."
"There are others like Automation Anywhere offering similar kinds of bots for less. Most of the platforms are the same, and most of the features are the same, but not the licensing cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Intelligent Document Processing (IDP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Educational Organization
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise29
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
When evaluating Robotic Process Automation, what aspect do you think is the most important to look for?
My answer is going to a bit different as I am a business user with limited programming skills 1. Software costs including recurring fees are very important. Automation Anywhere wants to charge a ...
What do you like most about IQ Bot?
IQ Bot is relatively easy to use and develop.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IQ Bot?
In my experience, compared to Power Automate ( /products/microsoft-power-automate-reviews ), IQ Bot ( /products/iq-bot-reviews ) is high-priced, but when compared to UiPath, it is lower priced. For...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Synergy
Find out what your peers are saying about ABBYY, UiPath, Automation Anywhere and others in Intelligent Document Processing (IDP). Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.