Test the statements you actually receive.
A clean transaction table can make two parsing tools look similar. Underwriting asks a harder question: did the tool capture the information that could change the decision? For Aaron Chen at KM Capital, that distinction shaped the comparison.
Aaron describes testing Pathway alongside MoneyThumb, Ocrolus, Heron, and other options. His assessment focused on the accuracy and detail of the resulting bank statement scrubs, particularly for Canadian institutions such as Desjardins.
This is a customer’s account of an evaluation, rather than a published benchmark. The important design principle behind it is useful for any review: compare the outputs against the source statements and the questions your underwriters need to answer.
The small entries tell a larger story.
An NSF event may occupy a single line. An overdraft can be brief. A negative balance may disappear before the end of the month. None of those details becomes unimportant just because it is easy to overlook in a long statement.
A reviewer needs to see both the transaction and its place in the broader pattern. Was it isolated or recurring? Did it happen around an existing payment obligation? Does a healthy closing balance conceal pressure earlier in the month?
Pathway’s role in this workflow is to organize the evidence so those questions are easier to ask. The objective is not a prettier summary. It is a review that preserves the details an underwriter would otherwise have to find manually.
“We tested Pathway against MoneyThumb, Ocrolus, Heron, and others. Its bank statement scrubs were the most accurate and detailed, especially on Canadian banks like Desjardins, where it picked up NSF activity, overdrafts, and negative days the others missed.”
Aaron Chen
KM Capital
Give the reviewer a useful starting point.
The draft KM workflow begins with the statements that arrive with a submission. Once they are parsed into a book, the reviewer can work through the cash-flow picture and inspect the underlying activity instead of building a first pass from scratch.
A consistent structure also helps the team compare periods and accounts. Revenue, balances, and signs of payment pressure can be considered together, with the original documents available when a detail needs another look.
The human decision stays central. Better extraction is valuable because it gives the reviewer a more complete basis for that decision—not because a parser should decide the outcome on its own.
Choose the tool that holds up under review.
Aaron’s takeaway was specific: Pathway surfaced activity that other outputs in his comparison missed. For KM Capital, that made the statement scrub more useful at the moment it mattered, when someone was deciding how to interpret the business.
The lasting value is confidence in the starting point. Less time questioning whether an important entry disappeared. More time understanding what the evidence means for the deal.