RPA proved automation was worth it. But replaying clicks on screens has limits: the moment a document changes or a case falls outside the script, the robot breaks. AI agents approach the problem differently. An honest comparison.
0
scripts to maintain when a layout changes
5 steps
of pipeline, from file drop to deliverable
100%
of AI calls metered, capped and billed at real cost
RPA (Robotic Process Automation) replays human actions on interfaces: open a screen, copy, paste. It excels when everything is stable, and seizes up the moment a format moves. Every screen or layout change is paid for in script maintenance.
An AI agent doesn't replay clicks: it understands content. A new but similar document gets processed; a doubtful case gets flagged instead of failing the batch. That's the ERHA logic: pipelines that read, process, verify and deliver, with a human keeping the final call.
One script per layout, to maintain.
Structure is understood, not scripted.
The robot fails, or processes silently.
Flagged and submitted for human validation.
An RPA project: licences, developers, weeks.
Pipeline built by ERHA on your real files.
Scripts reworked at every change.
The pipeline absorbs format variations.
Per-robot licences, fixed cost.
Per run: metered, capped, billed at real cost.
No. The two coexist well: RPA carries on with the stable flows, AI agents take the variable documents and the cases that need interpretation. Most teams start with a single process.
The ERHA pipeline doesn't guess: doubtful cases are re-checked, then flagged for human validation, and every decision is traced. Reliability comes from control, not blind trust.
There is no licence: every AI call goes through the Token Gateway, metered, capped and billed at real cost. You see the cost of each run and compare it with the human time or licence it replaces.
We'll show you ERHA on your own use case, in 20 minutes.