ExtractFox vs Nanonets

Nanonets has moved to a self-serve, credits-based workflow builder — you chain 'blocks' (classify, extract, validate, route) and each block execution draws down credits at its own rate. ExtractFox is a single upload-and-extract step with one flat monthly quota, no workflow to assemble and no per-block pricing to track.

By ExtractFox team · Updated

Drop a PDF or image here, or browse
PDF up to 50 MB · images up to 20 MB
Processed in-flight — temporary uploads are deleted after processing.

The short version

Nanonets used to be squarely enterprise IDP: custom-trained models, labeled data, sales-led onboarding. It's since opened up a genuinely self-serve free tier with published consumption pricing — worth knowing if you're comparing the two, since some of the old 'sales call required' framing no longer holds. What's still true is the shape of the product: Nanonets is a workflow builder where you assemble blocks and each one meters separately (simple operations, standard AI, complex AI all have different per-run rates). ExtractFox skips the workflow-builder step entirely — one upload, one extraction, one quota.

Side by side

FeatureExtractFoxNanonets
Time to first extraction30 secondsMinutes, self-serve
Custom-model training available—✓
Free tier2 without signup; 5/mo with account$50 in credits
Self-serve signup✓✓
Pricing modelFlat monthly quotaPer-block credit metering
Multi-language✓✓
On-prem / VPC optionEnterprise plan✓
Bulk batch processing✓✓
Public pricing above the free tier✓Growth/Enterprise: quote-based
Free-text custom extraction✓Configure a workflow block

Why teams switch from Nanonets

One quota, not a workflow to price out

Nanonets charges per block execution — simple, standard-AI, and complex-AI runs each meter differently, so the cost of a document depends on which blocks you chained together. ExtractFox is a flat monthly extraction count regardless of document complexity.

No workflow to assemble before you extract anything

Nanonets' model is classify → extract → validate → route, built as a chain of blocks. If you just want structured fields out of a PDF today, that's setup before your first real result. ExtractFox is upload, extract, done.

Free-text extraction for one-off requests

When a one-off question comes in ('what's the total revenue across these annual reports'), ExtractFox lets you type the question in the same request as the upload. In Nanonets that's a block you configure separately.

Pricing

ExtractFox

No signup needed for the first extraction. Paid tiers run $9–$149/mo depending on volume (100–4,000 extractions/mo).

Nanonets

Starter is free with $50 in credits and no card, then $100 a month buys 100 credits. Each block run costs $0.02 (simple), $0.10 (standard AI) or $0.30 (complex AI), and Nanonets says a typical invoice workflow uses 4–6 blocks per document. Growth and Enterprise are quote-based.

Both have a real free tier now. The difference is predictability: ExtractFox's quota is a flat extraction count, while Nanonets' credit burn depends on which blocks a workflow uses, which is harder to budget against before you've built it.

When Nanonets is the better pick

Pick Nanonets if you want a model trained specifically on your document types for the highest possible accuracy, or you need a multi-step workflow (classify, extract, validate, route) rather than a single extraction step.

Sources

Everything said about Nanonets on this page comes from these pages, checked on the date shown.

Frequently asked questions

Will ExtractFox match Nanonets's accuracy on my documents?

On standard document types — invoices, receipts, statements, IDs — yes. On documents Nanonets has trained a custom model against, that trained model can edge out a general model. The trade-off is the training investment to get there.

Can I integrate ExtractFox with my existing tools like Nanonets allows?

ExtractFox has a REST API on paid plans, authenticated with bearer API keys. Direct connectors and webhooks aren't shipped yet; today you'd wire flows through your own backend.

What about extracting tables with merged cells or complex layouts?

Both tools handle these well. ExtractFox doesn't need a separate table-detection block — it's part of the same single extraction step.

Is there a free Nanonets alternative for low document volume?

Both have a free tier now — ExtractFox gives two extractions with no signup plus 5/month with an account, while Nanonets gives $50 in credits that you spend per block execution. For evaluating a handful of documents without building a workflow first, ExtractFox is the faster path to a result.

Do I need labeled training data to get started with ExtractFox?

No. ExtractFox's general multimodal model extracts from the first document you upload, with no labeling or training step — that stays true whether or not you go the Nanonets custom-model route for your own use case.

Try a specific extractor

Other comparisons