logo
Veryfi alternative (for PDF integrity)

Looking for a Veryfi alternative for PDF integrity? — Different category by design

AP and expense-ops teams know Veryfi for OCR extraction and data structuring on receipts and invoices. htpbe? answers a different question: was the PDF itself modified or fabricated? We don't extract data — we read the structural layer (producer, xref, signatures, image streams) and report INTACT, MODIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE. Pair us with Veryfi (or any OCR layer) for a complete pipeline, or use standalone if structural fraud is your specific gap.

~3 sec
per document
35 checks
forensic layers
From $15
per month
1,500+
docs / month on Growth
Scope

htpbe? is not an OCR replacement. We don't extract amounts, dates, vendor names, or line items — that's what Veryfi and similar platforms (AWS Textract, Google Document AI) are for. We answer "did this PDF get modified or fabricated after issuance?" — a structural-forensics question that's orthogonal to extraction.

How it looks

One REST call, one deterministic verdict

Upload the PDF. The API returns INTACT, MODIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE with named markers — in about three seconds.

What this looks like

Why teams use htpbe? alongside Veryfi (not instead of)

Three real fraud mechanics we catch at the structural PDF layer.

01

OCR + structural forensics is the right pipeline

Veryfi extracts the data (vendor name, amounts, line items). htpbe? answers whether the underlying PDF was edited. Both pieces of information are useful — extraction tells you what the document says, structural forensics tells you whether you can trust it. Most AP fraud-ops pipelines benefit from both.

02

Self-serve, public pricing

Plans from $15/mo (30 requests) to $499/mo (1,500 requests) with public pricing. Sign up, get an API key, ship the integration the same day. Free test keys on every plan.

03

Structural-only depth

htpbe? focuses on one thing: PDF integrity. That focus shows up in detection depth — incremental update, signature chain, ghost-info scan, font subset divergence, balance arithmetic, image-stream artefacts. Across 10 forensic layers, dedicated to PDF structural fraud.

How htpbe? is positioned

Different layer
OCR extracts; htpbe? checks integrity. Use both.
$15/mo
starter plan, 30 requests included
~3 sec
per PDF analyzed via API

When htpbe? makes sense (and when Veryfi is the right tool)

Need data extraction? Veryfi. Need integrity check? htpbe? Best practice: both.

They're complementary, not competing.

Veryfi is built for OCR extraction — turning a receipt or invoice PDF into structured data your accounting system can consume. htpbe? is built for integrity checking — verifying the PDF wasn't modified or fabricated. Most AP and expense-ops pipelines that take fraud seriously use both: Veryfi (or a similar OCR engine) for extraction, htpbe? for structural integrity. Picking one over the other typically means the gap shows up later. The honest answer is "use both for full coverage" rather than "switch from Veryfi to htpbe?".

Results in under 3 seconds30 to 1,500+ documents/monthFrom $15/mo
How it works

Five forensic layers, one deterministic verdict

Every PDF we receive passes through the same structural pipeline — no model training, no thresholds to tune.

01

Metadata analysis

Creation and modification timestamps, producer and creator fields, XMP metadata — the first layer exposes basic tampering.

02

File structure

Xref tables, trailer chain, incremental updates. Any edit after export leaves a structural fingerprint here.

03

Digital signatures

Signature chain integrity and post-signature modifications produce deterministic markers. Certainty-level signal.

04

Content integrity

Fonts, objects, embedded content, page assembly. Multi-session edits and inserted objects are visible at this layer.

05

Verdict with markers

Deterministic output: INTACT / MODIFIED / INCONCLUSIVE, with named markers for every finding — suitable for audit trail.

Document types

PDFs we analyze structurally for AP and expense ops

Every type listed below is analyzed at the structural file layer — not the rendered image.

Receipt PDFInvoice PDFVendor invoice PDF (AP)Expense report PDFRepair estimate PDFMedical bill PDFReimbursement request PDF
What htpbe? checks

Detection capabilities

Deterministic structural signals. No probabilistic scores, no model training.

Producer signature analysis

Authentic invoices come from accounting software (QuickBooks, Xero, SAP, NetSuite, Zoho). Authentic receipts come from POS systems. When the producer field shows a desktop tool or generator-tool fingerprint (Microsoft Word, Chrome Headless, Puppeteer), htpbe? flags it.

Incremental update detection

Edits to a real invoice or receipt (changed amounts, vendor names, bank-account numbers) leave incremental update markers in the xref chain. Critical signal for BEC fraud and AP-line-item manipulation.

Digital signature chain validation

Many vendor invoices and structured receipts carry digital signatures. htpbe? validates the chain and flags invalidated or removed signatures — orthogonal to whatever Veryfi extracts.

Image-stream artefact detection

Lifted-and-pasted vendor logos and merchant headers leave compression artefacts that differ from authentic embedded content — a structural fingerprint of fabrication.

AI-rendered receipt detection

AI tools produce receipts through Chrome Headless, Puppeteer, wkhtmltopdf, or ReportLab toolchains. The producer field exposes the rendering pipeline, even when the visual layout looks pixel-perfect. INCONCLUSIVE on a "POS receipt" with a headless-browser producer is a strong fraud signal.

Cross-document fingerprint analysis

When multiple "different" vendor invoices share font subset prefixes, image hashes, or producer signatures across an expense submission, the API surfaces the shared fingerprints — useful for catching expense-fraud rings.

Integrate in minutes

How htpbe? complements Veryfi (or any OCR layer)

Buyers can skip this section — developers, the integration is two HTTP calls.

Step 1 — submit the PDF (alongside or after your OCR step)

curl -X POST https://api.htpbe.tech/v1/analyze \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $HTPBE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"url": "https://your-storage/vendor-invoice.pdf"}'

Step 2 — read the integrity verdict (independent of OCR)

{
  "id": "v1e2r3y4-5f6i-7p8d-9z0f-a1b2c3d4e5f6",
  "status": "modified",
  "modification_confidence": "high",
  "modification_markers": [
    "Two cross-reference tables — incremental update",
    "Modification date 6 days after creation date",
    "PDF editor producer detected"
  ],
  "producer": "Adobe Acrobat Pro",
  "creator": "QuickBooks Online",
  "creation_date": 1707091200,
  "modification_date": 1707609600,
  "has_digital_signature": false,
  "xref_count": 2,
  "has_incremental_updates": true
}

Original came from QuickBooks Online — institutional accounting software. 6 days later it was opened in Adobe Acrobat Pro and re-saved, adding a second xref. Verdict: modified at high confidence. Pair this verdict with whatever Veryfi extracted — extraction tells you the bank-account number on the invoice, integrity tells you whether you can trust that the bank-account wasn't swapped after issuance (a classic BEC pattern).

Customer Stories

Teams that stopped document fraud

Compliance, finance, and risk teams use htpbe? to catch manipulated PDFs before they become costly mistakes.

Caught an invoice where the total had been changed by less than a thousand dollars. Without this I would have approved it without a second look.

Sarah M.

AP Manager

United States

We had three applicants in the same week with bank statements that looked completely fine. Two of them were flagged as modified. You simply cannot see this by reading the document — it is in the file structure.

Lars V.

Risk Analyst, Online Lending

Netherlands

Salary slips were coming with altered figures. We identified two problematic files before the placement was finalised.

Priya K.

HR Operations Lead

India

Since we started checking documents this way, we stopped two applications early in the process that would have been very difficult to reverse later.

Julien R.

Fraud Analyst, Fintech

France

Some applicants were sending PDFs that looked authentic but had been edited in ways not visible to the eye. We now ask for verified originals when something is flagged. Already saved us from a few bad decisions.

Marta S.

Compliance Coordinator

Spain

One invoice was caught because there was a mismatch between the document dates and structure. That particular case would have cost us significantly.

Tariq A.

Finance Manager

United Arab Emirates

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

No, deliberately so. Veryfi is OCR extraction; htpbe? is structural integrity. Different categories. The honest answer for most AP and expense-ops teams that care about fraud is "use both" — Veryfi for the data, htpbe? for the integrity check. Switching from one to the other typically leaves a gap.
When you don't need data extraction (e.g., you only need to know if a contract or signed document was modified after signing) or when you have OCR covered by another tool (Textract, Document AI, Azure Form Recognizer). htpbe? is also enough on its own when integrity is the only fraud signal you care about.
Plans start at $15/mo (30 requests) and go to $499/mo (1,500 requests) with public pricing on /pricing. Veryfi pricing is on their site — they price by volume of OCR transactions, which is a different unit from our integrity-check unit. Direct comparison isn't apples-to-apples; the two tools answer different questions.
Yes. Sign up for the free tier — test API keys are included on every plan, including free. Run our test PDF fixtures through your integration without consuming live quota. No card on free tier.

Secure your workflow

Create your account — API key on signup, free test environment on every plan.
From $15/mo. No sales call. Cancel any time.