---
title: "Reducto"
type: "AI Tool"
url: "https://aidemos.com/tools/reducto"
description: "Invoice PDF → nested JSON with citations, confidence metadata, and all 8 line items preserved; bank statements still missed totals and fields."
category: "productivity"
website: "https://reducto.ai/?via=aidemos"
published: "2026-07-16T10:20:08.072658+00:00"
updated: "2026-07-16T10:20:08.072658+00:00"
evidenceCount: 8
verifiedCount: 0
coverage: "partial"
---

# Reducto

Structured PDF extraction with nested JSON, citations, and row-preserving tables; invoices worked cleanly, while bank statements still need review.

`Nested JSON` · `Line items` · `Citations` · `Confidence scores`

**Website:** [Visit Reducto](https://reducto.ai/?via=aidemos)

## Evidence (first-party, tested)

*8 tested cells · 0/8 artifact-verified. Scores are out of 5. Cite a cell by its Evidence ID, e.g. `ev:reducto·bank-statement-pdf·extraction-accuracy`.*

| Criterion | Scenario | Verdict | Score | Tested | Proof | Evidence ID |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Extraction Accuracy | Bank Statement PDF | ✓ worked | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-bank-statement-extracted-currenc-84b19b22634f.png) | `ev:reducto·bank-statement-pdf·extraction-accuracy` |
| Extraction Accuracy | Invoice PDF | ✓ worked | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-invoice-summary-915cda528c4b.png) | `ev:reducto·invoice-pdf·extraction-accuracy` |
| Schema Adherence | Invoice PDF | ⚠ struggled | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-invoice-additional-field-00dd3235f7e8.png) | `ev:reducto·invoice-pdf·schema-adherence` |
| Schema Adherence | Bank Statement PDF | ✓ worked | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-bank-statement-output-320fdfd45c76.png) | `ev:reducto·bank-statement-pdf·schema-adherence` |
| Table & Record Completeness | Bank Statement PDF | ⚠ struggled | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-transactions-5f1507b139e2.png) | `ev:reducto·bank-statement-pdf·table-and-record-completeness` |
| Table & Record Completeness | Invoice PDF | ✓ worked | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-invoice-extracted-line0items-e23fe4fdf946.png) | `ev:reducto·invoice-pdf·table-and-record-completeness` |
| Table & Record Completeness | Bank Statement PDF | ✗ failed | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://t9014651757.p.clickup-attachments.com/t9014651757/daab54bf-c443-45b3-a55f-234fba5292af/reducto-transactions.png) | `ev:reducto·bank-statement-pdf·table-record-completeness` |
| Table & Record Completeness | Invoice PDF | ✓ worked | — | — | 🧾 [proof](https://t9014651757.p.clickup-attachments.com/t9014651757/acc71d7f-065b-469a-ad87-ed77e2ac7b7c/reducto-invoice-extracted-line0items.png) | `ev:reducto·invoice-pdf·table-record-completeness` |

> 🧾 = artifact-verified (proof captured) · 👁 = observed (noted, no artifact) · verdicts: worked / mixed / struggled / failed.

> **Invoice extraction was strong; bank-statement reconciliation was not fully trustworthy.**
>
> Reducto did a solid job turning the invoice PDF into nested JSON, preserving all eight line items and attaching citations plus confidence metadata for review. The bank-statement run was less dependable: transaction counts, summary totals, and several transaction-level fields were off or missing. Across both documents, it looks best when the schema is clear and a human can validate the extracted finance data before downstream use.

## Demo Recording

[Video: Reducto demo recording](https://d3epheqghktydj.cloudfront.net/reducto-reducto-invoice-tool-demo-2d86a921f124.mp4)
*Video — Screen recording of the invoice extraction workflow, including schema-driven JSON output and review-oriented metadata.*

## Feature-by-Feature Breakdown

### Schema-Driven Nested Extraction

**Verdict:** Mixed

Reducto extracts structured fields from uploaded business PDFs into nested JSON that follows a supplied schema. It was exercised on an invoice and a bank statement, pulling metadata, advertiser and station details, billing and remit blocks, flight dates, line items, and summary values.

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Json**

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Json**

**Bottom line:** Strong when the document layout maps cleanly to the requested schema; the invoice was a clean success, while the bank statement still needed review for transaction completeness and totals.

### Repeated-Record Table Extraction

**Verdict:** Mixed

Reducto preserves tabular repeats as separate rows instead of flattening them. On the invoice it kept eight line items as distinct records, and on the bank statement it returned transaction rows for reconciliation.

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Image**

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Image**

**Bottom line:** Excellent row preservation on the invoice; usable but not trustworthy enough on the bank statement without reconciliation.

### Source Citation and Confidence Annotation

**Verdict:** Strong

Reducto attaches field-level source citations, bounding boxes, and confidence signals to extracted values for review when enabled (this is a default feature). The invoice and bank-statement outputs both exposed provenance objects and confidence metadata for auditing.

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Image**

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Image**

**Input:**

> **Pdf**

**Output:**

> **Image**

**Bottom line:** The audit trail is a real strength: both documents attach value-level provenance and confidence metadata, making review and correction practical.

## Published plans from the research report

| Plan | Price | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Standard | Pay-as-you-go (first 15,000 credits/month free, then $0.015 per credit) | Includes Parse, Extract, Edit, and Split APIs; supports 30+ file types; up to 5 Studio seats. |
| Growth | Custom pricing | Volume discounts, higher rate limits, priority support, EU/Australia data residency, zero-retention option, and unlimited Studio seats. |
| Enterprise | Custom pricing | VPC or on-premises deployment, custom SLAs, SSO/SAML, RBAC, custom pipelines, and dedicated enterprise support. |

*Pricing and plan notes come from the research report; the Standard plan includes Parse, Extract, Edit, and Split APIs and supports 30+ file types.*

## Is It Right For You?

**Use it if**
- You want to upload invoices or bank statements and get nested structured JSON back.
- You need citations, bounding boxes, and confidence scores for review workflows.
- You can validate and correct bank-statement outputs before downstream use.
- You need row-preserving extraction for repeating records like line items or transactions.

**Skip it if**
- You need exact bank-statement transaction counts and summary totals with no post-processing.
- You need a fully hands-off reconciliation workflow.
- You need every extracted field to be complete on the first pass for a noisy statement.
- You need strict schema-only output with no extra fields outside the requested structure.

## Classification

- **Category:** productivity
- **Subcategory:** pdf-tools
- **Type:** text

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Q: What kinds of documents did Reducto handle in this research?**

The report tested two document types: an invoice PDF and a bank-statement PDF.

**Q: Did Reducto return structured JSON or just OCR text?**

It returned structured nested JSON, not plain OCR text. The invoice output was organized into blocks such as invoice metadata, advertiser, station, line items, and summary, while the bank statement output included metadata, account-holder, branch, statement-period, transactions, and summary sections.

**Q: How well did the invoice extraction work?**

The invoice run was strong. It preserved all eight line items as separate records, reconstructed the requested nested structure, and matched the invoice totals in the summary. The report also noted an extra idb_number field that appeared even though it was not in the requested schema.

**Q: What went wrong on the bank statement?**

The bank-statement output was less reliable. The report says the transaction count came out as 53 versus 51 expected, the summary total_transactions was 70 versus 40 correct, and several transaction-level fields such as transaction_id, transaction_type, date, and value_date were missing or inconsistently populated.

**Q: Does Reducto include citations and confidence scores?**

Yes. The research shows citation objects with page and bounding-box metadata, plus confidence information at the field or granular level. The invoice screenshots and bank-statement screenshots both expose that review metadata.

**Q: Can Reducto capture fields outside the requested schema?**

Yes. In the invoice run, the report noted that idb_number appeared in the output even though it was not part of the supplied schema.

**Q: How much does Reducto cost?**

The report lists a Standard plan that is pay-as-you-go with the first 15,000 credits per month free and then $0.015 per credit. It also lists Growth and Enterprise as custom-priced plans.

## Similar Tools

AI tools similar to Reducto:

- [Nanonets](https://aidemos.com/tools/nanonets) — Schema-first PDF extraction that produces usable exports, but dense table rows still need review.
- [Retab](https://aidemos.com/tools/retab) — Schema-first PDF extraction for finance documents that returns nested JSON with minimal setup.
- [Landing AI](https://aidemos.com/tools/landing-ai) — A capable PDF-to-markdown API for complex financial and scanned PDFs, with strong table and chart extraction but inconsistent heading semantics.
- [LlamaParse](https://aidemos.com/tools/llamaparse) — LlamaParse Review: AI Resume Parser & Schema Extraction Tested (2026)
- [Extend AI](https://aidemos.com/tools/extend-ai) — A capable PDF-to-markdown API for mixed and scanned documents that keeps structure and most visuals, but stumbles on the hardest table headers.