Hugging Face vs. OpenText Magellan vs. Shelf Engine

If an organisation has more access to data and have access to high end computers like GPUs it’s recommended to use Hugging face as it will give better accuracy than any other models. If an organisation having less data and has less access to GPUsis looking for decent performance then traditional algorithms are more appropriate than hugging face

Incentivized

If you do not have a large budget and are a large organization, I would steer clear of Actuate. If you are looking to do very complex washboarding, I would not use them. Your developers have to be very skilled to work with this. Plan to bring in consultants if necessary to help your process. Adhoc reporting is weak. If your pricing is user based and you expand, this could be very expensive.

• Model APIs
• Hugging Face Spaces for deploying demo apps
• Latest updated models available easily
• Vast support for language parsing and other relevant tasks

Incentivized

• The report outputs can vary across different types such as HTML, PDF, and Excel
• Their open source offering is very sufficient
• There are great boards and blogs for developers and engineers to expand and use their features.
• The people from the company that I've worked with are professional and courteous.

Incentivized

• Most of the Hugging face models are of big size, hence difficult to work if there is no access to high computational system like GPU.
• It’s good to have some visualization tool in hugging face for viewing model architecture.
• I recommend to implement hugging face lite version so that it can run on any system with less specifications.

Incentivized

• The documentation on all the available features, but most importantly on the scripting side, can be improved
• The standard look & feel of some basic options, like parameter selection or sorting and filtering, looks dated and can't be customized
• The server portal needs to provide better tools
• More integration is needed with other OpenText products

Incentivized

I am no longer working for the company that was using Actuate but I believe they would continue to use it because the stitching costs would be to high. It would require a complete rewrite of the reports and the never version of Actuate (BIRT) even required an almost complete report rewrite

Incentivized

It is quite intuitive to use. It is fit specifically for doing sentiment, emotion, and intention analysis as well as text classification and text summarization. I would have given 10 if it is fit for the purpose of doing image processing and analysis as well. There is a huge market to analyze video and image data.

Incentivized

Always there on the front and backend for us and the client.

There are some other services offer similar capacity as to Hugging Face, but not entirely the same. For example, amazon web services have a machine learning service called Comprehend, which offer a set of easy to use APIs to do machine translation and entity recognition and some other common NLP use case.

Incentivized

It is vastly superior to these in many ways, for complex reporting it is a much more sophisticated solution. Visualizations are very good. Javascript extensibility is very powerful, others don't support this or as well. Pentaho and MS are both OLAP oriented. Pentaho is moving more toward big data, which was not our primary focus. Others are stuck in the Crystal Reports Band metaphor.

• Hugging Face is cost and time saving.
• Pay is less, you pay what you use, doesn't affect much.
• Overall positive impact on business.

Incentivized

• Actuate can handle 50 to 60 sub reports inside a report very well.
• Dynamically creating the datasource, chart, graph, reports are the main advantages. We can do any level of drilling, and can create a performance matrix dashboard efficiently.