The final, decisive comparison of invoice processing automation software

If you’re a bookkeeper or running a product heavy small business, you already know the truth. Invoice processing is not about scanning paper anymore. It’s about what happens after the invoice lands in your system. That’s where the real work hides.

Freight lines that need splitting. Mixed GST. Bills that hit three or four accounts. Approvals that stall. Purchase orders that almost match, but not quite.

So let’s cut through the noise.

This is a grounded, side by side look at five of the most talked about invoice processing automation tools in Australia right now:

• Dext

• Hubdoc

• Datamolino

• EzzyBills

• Pulsify

No hype. No marketing fluff. Just how they actually behave when invoices get messy. And why some tools quietly create more downstream work than others.

First, a quick framing that matters more than features

Most invoice automation tools fall into one of two camps:

1. Capture tools

2. Workflow tools

Capture tools focus on getting data off a document. Workflow tools focus on what happens after that data exists.

Both matter. But only one actually reduces workload at scale.

Keep that in mind as we go.

Dext

What it does well

Dext is extremely good at document capture. Email an invoice, snap a photo, forward a receipt. It’s fast, familiar, and widely adopted.

For bookkeepers especially, it’s often the first automation tool clients ever use.

Strengths:

• Reliable OCR for standard invoices and receipts

• Strong integrations with Xero and MYOB

• Simple client submission experience

• Huge market adoption and ecosystem familiarity

For clean, single account invoices, Dext works smoothly.

Where it struggles

The moment invoices need thinking, Dext steps back.

Common friction points:

• Multi line invoices still need manual coding

• Freight and surcharges often miscategorised

• Mixed GST needs human review

• PO matching is basic and limited

• Exceptions are handled in the accounting system, not upstream

So while Dext saves time at the capture stage, a lot of work reappears later. Especially for product businesses, construction, wholesale, or e commerce.

Best for

• Bookkeeping practices that prioritise client submission

• Low complexity invoices

• Practices willing to handle exceptions inside Xero or MYOB

Hubdoc

What it does well

Hubdoc is built into the Xero ecosystem and that shows. It feels native, simple, and predictable.

Strengths:

• Included with many Xero plans

• Easy for clients to use

• Clean interface

• Good basic extraction for totals and suppliers

For small businesses just getting started, Hubdoc removes friction from sending documents in.

Where it struggles

Hubdoc is not trying to solve complex AP. And it doesn’t pretend to.

Limitations:

• No advanced line level logic

• No intelligent handling of freight or splits

• Limited approval workflows

• PO matching is minimal

• Exceptions push straight into Xero

The result is familiar. The document gets in quickly. The fixing still happens later.

Best for

• Very small businesses

• Xero first firms

• Low invoice volume

• Clean, predictable suppliers

Datamolino

What it does well

Datamolino sits somewhere between capture and early workflow. It gives bookkeepers a bit more control over how invoices behave before they hit the ledger.

Strengths:

• Better line extraction than basic capture tools

• Supplier rules and templates

• Cleaner review interface than some competitors

• Solid MYOB and Xero support

For firms wanting more structure before posting, Datamolino can feel like a step up.

Where it struggles

Datamolino still relies heavily on humans for decision making.

Challenges:

• Rules require setup and maintenance

• Edge cases still surface frequently

• No real PO matching engine

• Exceptions handled manually

• Scaling means adding reviewers, not reducing effort

It helps, but it doesn’t fundamentally change how work flows through a practice.

Best for

• Mid sized bookkeeping firms

• Firms with consistent suppliers

• Teams comfortable building and managing rules

EzzyBills

What it does well

EzzyBills has been around a long time, especially in Australia. It’s built for accounting teams, not just document capture.

Strengths:

• Strong OCR for line items

• Flexible coding options

• Good handling of Australian tax structures

• Supports more complex invoices than entry level tools

It’s often chosen by firms that outgrow basic capture software.

Where it struggles

EzzyBills still treats humans as the main decision engine.

Limitations:

• Significant manual review for complex invoices

• No deep automation around exceptions

• PO matching is limited

• Workload reduction depends on reviewer discipline

You save time, but the system still assumes someone is watching every invoice closely.

Best for

• Australian bookkeeping firms

• Businesses with moderate invoice complexity

• Teams that want more control but accept manual review

Pulsify

What it does differently

Pulsify starts from a different assumption.

Most invoices are not clean.
Most value is lost after capture.
Humans should handle exceptions, not everything.

So instead of optimising OCR accuracy alone, Pulsify focuses on removing work from the review stage.

Core capabilities:

• Line level automation by default

• Intelligent handling of freight and surcharges

• Mixed GST support without manual splitting

• Built in two way matching logic

• Confidence based exception routing

• Multi entity and multi account logic

Invoices that meet confidence thresholds pass through. Invoices that don’t are flagged early, clearly, and with context.

That distinction matters.

Why it creates less work in practice

Subtle things add up:

• Review queues shrink instead of shifting location

• Bookkeepers touch fewer invoices overall

• Businesses see fewer posting errors downstream

• Time saved compounds as volume grows

Pulsify doesn’t claim perfection. It just assumes reality.

Some invoices are messy. The system should deal with that upstream.

Best for

• Product heavy businesses

• Construction and wholesale

• E commerce and importers

• Bookkeeping firms managing high volume complexity

• Teams tired of fixing invoices twice

Functionality comparison at a glance

So which one is actually “best”?

It depends what problem you are solving.

If the problem is “how do clients send invoices in”, many tools solve that.

If the problem is “why are we still fixing invoices after automation”, the field narrows fast.

That’s where Pulsify quietly pulls ahead. Not because it captures documents better. But because it assumes the hardest part of AP is everything that happens next.

And that’s the part most teams are actually paying for with their time.