Likelihood to Recommend Caffe is only appropriate for some new beginners who don't want to write any lines of code, just want to use existing models for image recognition, or have some taste of the so-called Deep Learning.
Read full review Kira is a great due diligence tool and can be well utilised on both large and small transactions. It also has good application if you are looking to compare multiple documents against a model form document or market standard templates. Kira is less useful if you are looking to review emails (e.g. as part of a disclosure exercise); or if your review involves non-Latin based script languages.
Read full review Pros Caffe is good for traditional image-based CNN as this was its original purpose. Read full review UI/UX - tagging and naming feels much easier than you'd expect machine learning to feel Accuracy - Kira's built-in models perform well out of the box Assistance - Kira's support team gets back to me same day if I have a question Read full review Cons Caffe's model definition - static configuration files are really painful. Maintaining big configuration files with so many parameters and details of many layers can be a really challenging task. Besides imagine and vision (CNN), Caffe also gradually adds some other NN architecture support. It doesn't play well in a recurrent domain, so we have to say variety is a problem. Caffe's deployment for production is not easy. The community support and project development all mean it is almost fading out of the market. The learning curve is quite steep. Although TensorFlow's is not easy to master either, the reward for Caffe is much less than the TensorFlow can offer. Read full review Inability to relabel smart fields to suit the review process means it is hard to align it to particular projects (e.g. it would be useful to relabel the "Assignment" smart field as "Is the contract assignable?") Not enough non-English smart fields. Needs the ability to resell user-trained smart fields in a marketplace. Output is not customizable enough. Built-in analysis tools are useful but a little basic. Read full review Usability If our firm had more contracts in English, the usability of Kira would be rated higher. However, since we have to train clauses in Portuguese in order to use Kira, it makes its usability lower. We still are not able to fully use Kira for reading contracts in Portuguese. It takes a long time and many associate hours to make Kira usable in other languages.
Read full review Support Rating Customer Support is excellent. The online help portal is probably the best I have ever seen. Great videos with content easily found. The HelpLine is staffed by knowledgeable people. The videos have saved us providing a lot of in-house training, which we would struggle to resource. The account managers really know the product and their law firm clients and share best practices and trends.
Read full review Alternatives Considered TensorFlow is kind of low-level API most suited for those developers who like to control the details, while
Keras provides some kind of high-level API for those users who want to boost their project or experiment by reusing most of the existing architecture or models and the accumulated best practice. However, Caffe isn't like either of them so the position for the user is kind of embarrassing.
Read full review Kira offers a lot more out of the box than other providers and is also more flexible around integrations. This, plus the clear pricing structure, is why we went for it instead of (or as well as) others. Diligen, RAVN, Leverton, Della, Seal not in list.
Read full review Return on Investment Since we stopped using Caffe before it can reach the production phase, there is no clear ROI that can be defined. Read full review Positive ROI: Increased comfort level of attorneys and use of tech Neutral ROI: It has not significantly change how we handle projects, since there still is a need for manual review Negative ROI: It has been cost prohibitive to scale it Read full review ScreenShots