Reducto vs Extend
Two developer-first extraction APIs that get shortlisted together, and they split cleanly. Reducto is more accurate, wins on multi-page and non-English documents, and is cheaper on paper. Extend matches or beats it on single-page scans and handwriting, ships a noticeably richer product on its free tier, and is the easier of the two to adopt without a sales call.
Both take a file and a list of fields and return structured data. Both are pay-as-you-go with a free tier and no monthly minimum. And both finished in the top half of our benchmark, Reducto third and Extend fourth. On a stack of one-page documents you'd struggle to tell them apart. Extend is actually a touch better on scanned images, handwritten forms, and rotated pages, which matters if your documents come off a scanner or a phone camera rather than arriving as clean PDFs.
Page count is what separates them on accuracy. On statements and filings of a few pages Reducto stayed within a few points of DocuPipe, the top scorer, while Extend drifted. On long catalogs and directories with hundreds of entries, Reducto kept most of them and Extend lost most of them. That one weakness is the whole gap between third place and fourth, and it's a big gap. Language cuts the same way. Reducto was among the best on Hebrew and Arabic layouts and well ahead of Extend on non-English documents in general.
Neither is what we'd call plug-and-play, for different reasons. Reducto's ranked result needs Deep Extract, a different mode from the default, and its long-document shortfall arrives silently. Extend has one mode and nothing to tune, but a hard cliff on long documents and one odd miss on a plain export file. Both are fine on the everyday case. Both will surprise you at the edges.
On price the published numbers favour Reducto: roughly three cents a page against Extend's six, or five on Extend's $500 Scale plan. Both come with a footnote. Reducto's rate is for its standard tier, and Deep Extract isn't priced on the public page, so the real comparison is a quote. Extend's price is exactly what it says. Get the Deep Extract number before you treat Reducto as the cheaper one.
The product experience tilts the other way, and it isn't close. Extend's free tier includes Studio, an evaluation suite for regression-testing your extraction, workflows that chain classify, split, and extract, run and request logs, a review agent, webhooks with delivery logs, and a built-in test environment, all on a date-versioned API with SDKs in Python, TypeScript, Java, and Go. Reducto's free tier gives you Studio with a citation viewer, SDKs in Python, Node, and Go, an MCP server and a CLI, and signed webhooks on its async endpoints, but it holds custom webhooks, a zero-retention agreement, and a HIPAA BAA for the Growth plan. Extend's own compliance gap is a HIPAA BAA sold as a paid add-on and no SOC 2 stated on its pricing page.
So go with Reducto if your documents run long or non-English and you can get a Deep Extract quote you like. Go with Extend if your documents are short and scanned, or if you want to be in production this week on a free tier with everything switched on.
Your documents run to several pages, include long lists or tables, or come in languages other than English, and you can get a Deep Extract quote.
Your documents are mostly single pages, often scanned or handwritten, and you want the fuller product, evaluation tooling, and webhooks on the free tier without a sales call.
How it scores, area by area
The accuracy score comes from the benchmark. Every other score is ours, with the reason written next to it. We use the same weights on every review and comparison.
| Area | Reducto | Extend |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy35% of total | 8.9Ranked 3rd of 8 systems on the benchmark. | 8.0Ranked 4th of 8 systems on the benchmark. |
| Resilience15% of total | 6.0The ranked result needs Deep Extract, a different mode from the default, and on long documents it returns fewer entries than exist without saying so. | 5.0One mode and no tuning, but a hard cliff on long documents and one odd miss on a plain export file, all silent. |
| Price15% of total | 7.0Published $0.03 per page is among the lowest, but the ranked Deep Extract mode is not priced publicly. | 7.0About $0.06 per page pay-as-you-go, $0.05 on the $500 Scale plan, no minimum, and a generous free tier. |
| Getting started10% of total | 7.0Studio pipeline builder with a citation viewer and $150 of free usage; no schema-drafting assistant stated. | 9.0Studio, evaluation suite, workflows and a test environment on a free tier of 10,000 credits with no card; schemas are authored by hand in Studio. |
| API and integration10% of total | 7.0Four SDKs plus an MCP server and CLI, async endpoints with signed webhooks; custom webhooks gated to the Growth plan. | 9.0Webhooks with delivery logs, five APIs, four SDKs, request logs and a test environment, all on the free tier. |
| Data control7.5% of total | 7.0Documents deleted within 24 hours by default; zero retention and EU residency on Growth and up. | 7.0Zero and custom retention policies offered; custom agreements on Scale. |
| Compliance7.5% of total | 7.0SOC 2 Type II; HIPAA BAA only on Growth and up. | 5.0HIPAA BAA is a paid add-on; SOC 2 not stated on the pricing page. |
| Overallweighted | 7.5weighted score out of 10 | 7.3weighted score out of 10 |
How each area is scored
- Accuracy (35%). The benchmark result, on a 0 to 10 scale.
- Resilience (15%). Does it just work? Fewer modes to choose, no tuning to reach the ranked result, no runs that fail outright, and no documents that come back quietly empty. Informed by the benchmark, judged by us.
- Price (15%). Published cost per page for parse plus extraction, cheapest scoring highest. Unpublished pricing is marked down.
- Getting started (10%). How far you get without a sales call: a dashboard, a free tier with no card, help authoring schemas, a test environment.
- API and integration (10%). Webhooks and which tier they are on, SDKs, no-code connectors, whether the API is built around document jobs at all.
- Data control (7.5%). Deletion controls, scheduled retention, zero-retention availability and on which tier, choice of region.
- Compliance (7.5%). Certifications stated on public pages: SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA with a BAA, GDPR, private deployment options.
By document type
Average accuracy on each group of benchmark documents, both systems on the same files. Every document and score is on the evidence page.
| Document type | Reducto | Extend |
|---|---|---|
| Statements, filings, reports2 to 5 pages · 21 documents | 93.1% Good | 86.7% Good |
| Short forms, invoices, receiptsone page · 30 documents | 90.2% Good | 88.8% Good |
| Long registers, catalogs, directories6 pages and up · 21 documents | 84.5% Good | 61.7% Mixed |
| Non-English documents12 languages · 25 documents | 84.0% Good | 69.3% Mixed |
| Scans and photosimages, not PDFs · 7 documents | 83.2% Good | 86.9% Good |
| Reducto | Extend | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Pay-as-you-go per page, with Parse and Extract billed separately. Volume and enterprise plans on request. | Credits. Extraction costs 3 credits per page plus 2 for the automatic parse, so 5 credits per page end to end. |
| Entry price | $150 of free usage to start. Then Parse $10 per 1,000 pages and Extract $20 per 1,000 pages. | Pay-as-you-go is free to start with 10,000 credits, then $0.0125 per credit. Scale is $500/month for 50,000 credits at $0.01 per additional credit. |
| Cost per page | $0.03 per page for parse plus extract on the standard tier. Deep Extract, the ranked config, is not priced separately on the public page. | About $0.06 per page pay-as-you-go, $0.05 on Scale. |
| Free tier | Yes. $150 of usage on signup. | Yes. 10,000 credits, roughly 2,000 pages, on signup. |
| Pay as you go | Yes. The standard tier is pure pay-as-you-go. | Yes. |
| Dashboard | Yes. Reducto Studio: a visual pipeline builder to configure, test and deploy multi-step workflows in the browser, with a citation viewer down to the bounding box. 5 seats on the standard tier. No schema-drafting assistant stated. | Yes. Studio to build and test processors, an Evaluation suite for regression testing, Workflows that chain classify, split and extract, run logs, a Review Agent and human review, and a built-in test environment. |
| Webhooks | Signed webhooks on all async endpoints per the docs; the pricing page lists custom webhooks as a Growth-and-up feature. | Yes, with webhook endpoint and delivery logs in the dashboard. |
| API and SDKs | Python, Node.js, Go and REST, plus an MCP server and a CLI. Classify, Parse, Extract, Split and Edit APIs; async endpoints for every operation. | Python, TypeScript, Java, Go and REST on a date-versioned API. Parse, Extract, Classify, Split and Edit APIs; API request logs in the dashboard. |
| Data retention | Documents deleted within 24 hours by default; zero-retention agreement on Growth and up. EU data residency available. | Zero and custom data retention policies offered; custom retention agreements on Scale and up. |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA BAA on Growth and up. | HIPAA BAA as a paid add-on on Scale. SOC 2 not stated on the pricing page. |
We checked these against the vendors' own pricing and documentation pages on 2026-09-11. Sources: Reducto: reducto.ai, docs.reducto.ai; Extend: www.extend.ai, docs.extend.ai. Prices change, so confirm before you budget.
Frequently asked
Which is more accurate, Reducto or Extend?
Reducto, by about nine points overall (89.38% to 80.28%). The gap comes almost entirely from multi-page and non-English documents. On single-page scans the two are close and Extend is slightly ahead.
Which is cheaper, Reducto or Extend?
On published prices Reducto, at about three cents a page against Extend's five to six. Reducto's Deep Extract mode, the one behind its ranking, isn't priced publicly, so confirm that quote before comparing.
Scores are macro-average field accuracy from the DocuBench 0.2.0, 72-document run. Every document, answer key, and raw extraction is open in the explorer; the scoring rules are on the methodology page, and the replication kit re-runs the scorer. A document a system could not process scores zero rather than being dropped.