All comparisons
Comparison

Caddi vs. Tungsten Automation (Kofax): Which Should You Use?

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.

Caddi and Tungsten Automation both work with documents, but they stop at very different places. Tungsten Automation, formerly Kofax, is intelligent document processing: it captures and extracts structured data, then hands it off. Caddi reads the document and finishes the workflow it lives in. Tungsten suits very high-volume, capture-centric enterprise operations; Caddi suits ops teams in law and finance that want the whole job done, live in days.

The basics

What is Tungsten Automation?

An intelligent document processing platform, formerly Kofax, that captures and extracts structured data from documents using OCR, templates, and trained models. Its TotalAgility platform is strong at high-volume document capture in large enterprises.

What is Caddi?

The deterministic AI automation platform for ops and admin teams. Ops teams teach Caddi their workflows over a screen share, and then Caddi runs them reliably hundreds of times a week.

The fundamental difference

Tungsten captures and extracts: it turns a document into structured fields and then stops at "structured data out", leaving a person or a downstream system to move that data onward and finish the work. Standing it up means labeling fields and training models on sample documents, then maintaining them as formats drift. Caddi reads varied PDFs and inboxes natively, with no per-field templates and no model training, and then automates the whole workflow the document lives in, intake, decisions, and writing to the system of record, set up by recording the task once.

What it takes to stand one up

The extraction-silo lifecycle and the Caddi lifecycle look nothing alike. Toggle between the two to compare how each is built, how it runs, and where the work actually finishes.

Ops staff record it; Caddi finishes the work
  1. 1
    Record the task on a screen-shareA non-technical teammate walks through the workflow once, no labeling, no training.
  2. 2
    Caddi reads documents nativelyVaried PDFs and shared inboxes are handled out of the box, no per-field templates.
  3. 3
    Caddi writes deterministic code over APIsIt runs the whole workflow: intake, decisions, and writing to the system of record.
  4. 4
    Caddi maintains itUpkeep and edge cases are handled for you, often with automations live in days.
Tap a tab to switch between the label/train/extract/hand-off lifecycle and the Caddi record-once model.

Caddi vs. Tungsten Automation at a glance

Tungsten AutomationCaddi
CategoryIntelligent document processing (capture)Whole-workflow automation
What it deliversStructured data outThe finished workflow
How it's set upLabel fields, train modelsRecord the task once on a screen-share
Document handlingOCR, templates, trained modelsNative reading of varied PDFs & inboxes
After extractionHuman or downstream system finishes itCaddi finishes it over APIs
Who owns itCapture team / specialistsNon-technical ops staff
MaintenanceRetrain as formats driftBuilt & maintained by Caddi
Best fitVery high-volume enterprise captureLaw & finance back office

How they score where it counts

Tungsten is a mature, capture-centric platform built for very high volumes in large enterprises. Caddi trades some of that raw capture scale for finishing the whole workflow, native document handling with no training, and a done-for-you model built for regulated ops.

CaddiTungsten Automation
High-volume capture scaleFinishes the workflowSetup without trainingDone-for-youTime to liveLow maintenance
Directional scoring (out of 5). Tungsten leads on raw capture scale; Caddi leads on finishing the workflow, setup without training, speed, and being maintained for you.
Illustrative effort to launch & sustain one workflow
Tungsten: label, train + maintainHigh
Caddi: record + maintained for youLow
Directional. Tungsten effort is dominated by labeling, training, and retraining as formats drift; Caddi shifts setup to a recording and upkeep to the vendor.

When Tungsten Automation is the right call

Tungsten Automation is a strong fit if you run very high-volume, capture-centric document operations in a large enterprise, have a dedicated team to configure templates and train models on a platform like TotalAgility, and feed the extracted data into established downstream systems that already finish the work.

When Caddi is the right call

Caddi is the better fit if the people who own the process are non-technical, if your highest-value work is document- and inbox-heavy and needs to be finished, not just extracted (intake, filing, PDF → system of record, triage), if you want it set up by recording once instead of labeling and training, and if you need automations live in days with SOC 2 compliance and audit trails built in.

Which fits your situation?

Best fit

Caddi

Caddi reads the document and runs the rest of the workflow over APIs, so the work actually gets done.

Many teams come to Caddi because extracting data was never the goal, finishing the work was. If Tungsten gets you structured data out but a person still has to move it onward, Caddi reads the document and automates the whole workflow your ops team can own.

See Caddi next to your Tungsten workflows

Bring a document workflow you run through Tungsten today. Caddi will build it from a screen recording, read the documents natively, and run it across 70+ tools. See real examples or book a demo. For the broader landscape, see document automation software.

Do more with less

See Caddi in action

Tell us where to reach you and the calendar opens right here. In 30 minutes we'll show you how Caddi automates the back-office work that grows with your clients—built, run, and maintained for you.

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 once.

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 once 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.