Caddi vs. Tungsten Automation (Kofax)Tungsten captures the data; Caddi captures it and keys it into the next system too.
A direct comparison of Caddi and Tungsten Automation, formerly Kofax: document capture and extraction vs. whole-workflow automation, how each is set up and maintained, and which fits regulated back-office teams in law and finance.
- 99%of agent runs complete successfully
- ~45 minon average to build your first agent
- 1M+back-office tasks completed
Jason AlafganiUpdated Sep 23, 2026
Captured data still has to go somewhere.
After capture, someone keys the fields into the next system, routes the file and follows up on what's missing.
Captures and extracts structured data at very high volume, then hands it off.
Caddi captures it and keys it into the next system too, running the rest of the workflow over APIs.
Each document type is a field-by-field setup.
Labeling samples and training models comes first, and the cycle repeats whenever a form changes.
Capture templates and trained models, implemented by Tungsten or a partner and maintained by IT.
Caddi reads varied PDFs and shared inboxes natively, with nothing to label and nothing to train.
Volume only helps if each run comes out right.
One missed field on a client account is a compliance question, not a rounding error.
Built for capture-centric operations, with a dedicated team tuning extraction accuracy.
Known steps run as code, the same way every time, with AI only where a step needs judgment. 99% of agent runs complete, each step logged for review.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Caddi and Tungsten Automation?
Tungsten Automation, formerly Kofax, is an intelligent document processing platform: it captures and extracts structured data from documents using OCR, templates, and trained models, then hands that data off to a person or a downstream system. Caddi reads the same documents but also automates the whole workflow the document lives in, from intake to writing the result into your system of record. Tungsten is built for very high-volume, capture-centric document operations in large enterprises; Caddi is built for non-technical ops teams in law and finance.
Is Caddi a good Tungsten Automation alternative?
Yes, especially when the goal is not just to extract data but to finish the work the document triggers. Tungsten gets you structured data out, then someone still has to move it onward. Caddi reads varied PDFs and inboxes natively, with no per-field templates or model training, and runs the rest of the workflow over APIs, set up by recording the task.
Does Caddi require labeling fields and training models like Tungsten?
No. Tungsten's accuracy depends on configuring capture templates and training models on sample documents, then maintaining them as formats drift. With Caddi, a non-technical teammate records the workflow and Caddi reads documents natively, so there is nothing to label or train.
When should I use Tungsten Automation instead of Caddi?
Tungsten can be the right choice for very high-volume, capture-centric document operations in a large enterprise, where a dedicated team tunes and governs a capture platform like TotalAgility feeding established downstream systems. Caddi is the better fit when a non-technical team needs the whole workflow automated, not just the extraction step.