How does the MindBridge Ai-Auditor compare with tradition audit analytics tools?

Below is a comparison of MindBridge versus traditional audit analytics tools.

Criteria	Traditional Audit Analytics Tools	MindBridge	Winner
Coverage of testing	100% of known areas of interest	100% of known and unknown cases	MindBridge
Proven usage	Trusted, but outdated technology	Breakthrough technology, with growing evidence of its effectiveness	Tie (MindBridge positioned to surpass)
Knowledge curve (coding)	100% of known areas of interest	Not required	MindBridge
Ease of use (user interface)	Cumbersome, requires repetitive, extensive user training	Highly visual, intuitive with little-to-no training	MindBridge
Template (speed)	Time-consuming to set up rules for each client file	Not required	MindBridge
Availability	Dependent on ERS resource	Self-service	MindBridge
Composition & depth of algorithms	Rules are hand-crafted scripts and results are logged.	Packaged industry standard rules enhanced with automated, scientific algorithms, results are logged and exported	MindBridge
False-positives handling	Rules are created to handle each case	Once flagged, machine learning automatically excludes them from future analysis	MindBridge
Data ingestion	Manual, labor-intensive	Built-in, automated “smart ingestion” leveraging machine learning	MindBridge
Adherence to Audit Standards (IAS 240, CAS 240 & SAS 99)	Subjective & selective: reliant on professional skepticism and experience to find potential financial misstatements	Objective & inclusive: AI risk-based analytic tests prescribed by the Center for Audit Quality, plus extended analysis that further improves audit assurance	MindBridge