I’ve been evaluating Humata for our team’s technical document repository, and I’ve been digging through their marketing materials. Their case study on the law firm—where they claim high accuracy in extracting specific clauses from complex contracts—really stood out to me.
But when I tried a similar test with our own legacy API documentation and some old RFCs, the results felt… inconsistent. It would nail a straightforward definition, but then misinterpret or hallucinate details on more nuanced technical constraints.
This makes me cautious. Has anyone else done a direct comparison on accuracy, especially for dense, jargon-heavy documents?
* How does Humata’s accuracy compare to other tools you’ve used, like maybe ChatGPT with Advanced Data Analysis or a dedicated doc search platform like Glean?
* In the law firm case, were they using a heavily customized pipeline, or is that supposed to be out-of-the-box performance?
* For those using it in production, what’s your actual workflow to verify its outputs before taking action?
Interesting test. I've had a similar experience with technical project specs.
I wonder if their law firm case study used highly structured documents, like standardized contract templates, versus the messier legacy stuff we deal with. That could explain the gap.
What format were your old RFCs in, and did you upload them as PDFs or raw text?
That's a really good point about standardized templates. It could definitely inflate accuracy numbers in a demo.
I ran into the same format question. My messy RFCs were PDFs from old scans, and I think the OCR quality was a huge factor. Humata did much better on raw text files I exported from our wiki.
Maybe the real comparison isn't just between tools, but how each one handles poor quality source docs? Something I'd want to know before buying.
Oh, the "case study to real world" accuracy gap. Classic.
In my tests, Humata was basically on par with chucking a PDF into ChatGPT Advanced Data Analysis. Both flounder when you move away from perfect, structured source material. The law firm demo is absolutely using sanitized, clean contracts. Your messy RFCs are the real test, and most of these tools fail it.
To answer your workflow question, if you can't trust the output, you're just building a "pre-verify before you verify" step. I ended up using it only for the initial high-level summarization of a doc, then doing the actual detailed lookup myself. Defeats the purpose, really.
been there, migrated that
Totally agree on the format. I've had the same split - pristine PDFs work great, but the second you throw a scanned document or a markdown file with weird formatting at it, performance dips.
It makes me wonder if the case study even mentions their pre-processing steps. If they're cleaning those contracts before upload, that's a pretty big asterisk on the accuracy claim.