Priority ERP Invoice Scanning: Vendor-Neutral Guide

Priority ERP does not include native invoice OCR, so teams usually scan invoices into Priority in one of three ways: a Priority marketplace add-on, a broader AP automation tool, or an extraction-first workflow that outputs reviewable Excel or CSV files for import. If you are evaluating Priority ERP invoice scanning, the best option depends on whether you need PO matching and approvals inside the workflow or flexible Hebrew-friendly extraction before anything is posted into Priority.

That distinction matters because Priority Software does offer automation across finance operations, but that is not the same as built-in supplier invoice OCR. Many search results blur those two ideas. They talk about automation at a high level, then leave buyers to infer that invoice capture is handled natively. In practice, Priority users still need a separate way to read scanned PDFs, emailed invoices, and phone photos, then turn those files into data their AP team can trust.

This guide takes a vendor-neutral approach to that choice. Instead of assuming every Priority user needs the same kind of tool, it breaks the decision down by workflow complexity, Hebrew document handling, and how much review you want before import. That makes it easier to separate genuine requirements from ecosystem marketing.

---

The Three Practical Ways to Scan Invoices Into Priority ERP

Most Priority ERP invoice capture projects fall into one of three buckets.

• Priority marketplace add-ons: These are tools sold into the Priority ecosystem through the Priority Software Marketplace. They are usually designed to connect invoice capture more tightly to AP processing inside the ERP context.
• Broader AP automation platforms: These tools position invoice capture as one component of a wider accounts payable workflow that may include approvals, exception handling, and multi-entity controls.
• Extraction-first workflows: These focus on turning invoices into structured outputs that finance teams can review before import, often as Excel, CSV, or JSON.

Path	Usually strongest when	Main tradeoff
Priority marketplace add-on	You want invoice capture tied closely to Priority-specific AP activity	The workflow can be heavier than needed if reviewable capture is the main goal
Broader AP platform	You want common controls across multiple entities, systems, or approval structures	Priority may be only one part of a larger implementation
Extraction-first workflow	You want flexible field capture plus a review step before import	You still need a deliberate import and exception-review process

Examples help illustrate the categories. DOKKA and DOConvert are both visible to Priority buyers because they speak directly to the Priority workflow. EasyDox also appears in the Israeli invoice-management lane. The important point is not which vendor has the best landing page. It is what category of workflow each tool supports, and whether that category matches your process.

Marketplace tools usually make the most sense when your team wants more of the AP flow handled inside one connected system, especially if routing, validations, and ERP-linked actions matter as much as capture. Broader AP platforms can make sense if you are standardizing invoice operations across several entities or software environments, not just Priority. By contrast, some teams simply want AI invoice extraction for Priority ERP imports that converts scanned PDFs, JPGs, or PNGs into reviewable spreadsheets before finance signs off on the posting. In those cases, an extraction-first tool such as Invoice Data Extraction can be a better fit because it produces Excel, CSV, or JSON output with source-file and page references rather than forcing the entire AP workflow into a single layer.

The hidden difference between these categories is where control sits. Marketplace tools usually push more control into the connected workflow around Priority. Broader AP platforms push control into a wider operating model that may span multiple systems. Extraction-first tools keep more control with finance by letting the team review the data before import. That distinction often matters more than the marketing label attached to the product.

That is also why this article stays neutral. Existing results often explain one solution category as if it should win by default. A better question is what kind of control your team needs between invoice capture and ERP posting. If you want another local benchmark, compare how invoice scanning compares in another Israeli ERP stack and notice how the same workflow tradeoffs appear there as well.

Match the Tool to Your AP Workflow, Not Just the ERP Name

The biggest buying mistake in this category is choosing based on the words "works with Priority" instead of choosing based on how your AP process actually runs. If your team does heavy PO matching or three-way matching, the evaluation criteria change immediately. You need to understand how the tool handles invoice-to-PO validation, how exceptions move through review, and whether goods receipt matching is part of the same operational flow or pushed back onto the team manually.

That is where workflow-connected tools often earn their cost. When invoices need to be checked against open purchase orders, received quantities, or approval chains before posting, a closer fit to the day-to-day AP process can matter more than raw extraction quality alone. This is the side of the market where the Priority ERP PO matching workflow becomes decisive, because the team is not just capturing fields. It is deciding how much downstream AP logic should live inside the tool.

Three workflow questions usually clarify the choice quickly:

• PO-heavy environment: Can the tool capture the PO number reliably, validate against the purchase order, and surface mismatches before posting?
• Goods-receipt-dependent environment: Can the workflow account for received quantities or delivery confirmation without pushing those checks back into email and spreadsheets?
• Approval-only environment: If your team mainly needs reviewer sign-off rather than deep matching logic, are you paying for orchestration you will rarely use?

But not every Priority team needs that level of orchestration. Some approval-only environments have lighter controls, fewer line-item exceptions, or a separate review step outside the capture tool. In those cases, a broader goal like Priority ERP AP automation should not be confused with buying the deepest workflow layer available. If your main requirement is accurate invoice data, a controlled exception review, and a clean handoff into Priority, an extraction-first workflow may be enough.

The practical test is where errors are most expensive in your current process. If the real pain is failed matches, missing receipt references, or approvals that stall because invoice data is incomplete, a tighter workflow layer can justify itself. If the real pain is manual typing, inconsistent supplier layouts, and too much correction before import, a review-first capture model is often the more direct fix. That distinction keeps teams from paying for workflow depth they will not use, or from under-scoping a process that really does depend on embedded controls.

During a vendor demo, ask to see the exact scenario that causes trouble in your current process. That usually means one invoice with a valid PO reference, one invoice with a mismatch, one invoice that should route for approval without matching, and one invoice that arrives as a lower-quality scan. A tool that looks convincing on a clean sample file can still fail when the workflow gets messy.

This is the gap most competitor pages leave open. They explain why their product supports Priority, but they do not help you decide whether your own process complexity justifies a more embedded system. A team with routine PO exceptions, received-goods checks, and approval branching will shortlist differently from a team that mainly wants cleaner capture and fewer keying errors. The right path starts with process design, not with the vendor logo.

Hebrew Invoices Change the Evaluation Criteria

For Israeli finance teams, Hebrew invoice OCR for Priority ERP is not a niche requirement. It is often the requirement that separates a usable workflow from one that looks fine in a demo but breaks down in production. Hebrew OCR has to deal with right-to-left invoices, mixed Hebrew-English supplier layouts, local tax terminology, and document structures that do not behave like generic English-language invoice templates. A tool that only performs well on Latin-script invoices can still leave your AP team doing manual correction work before anything reaches Priority.

That is why the evaluation should focus on structured output, not just readable text. Before import or review, most Priority teams need the supplier legal name, invoice number, invoice date, net amount, VAT amount, total amount, PO number when relevant, and any additional reference fields their workflow relies on. If those values are not consistently extracted into usable columns, the tool has not solved the real problem. It has only moved the correction work to a different stage. This is also the point where which fields Israeli VAT invoices need captured correctly becomes a practical checklist rather than background reading.

At a minimum, most teams should be able to verify these fields before import:

• Supplier legal name: Needed for vendor matching and duplicate-check review.
• Invoice number and date: Needed for posting control, duplicate prevention, and audit traceability.
• Net amount, VAT amount, and total amount: Needed to confirm tax treatment and payment values.
• PO number or internal reference: Needed when the invoice will be matched or routed against an existing transaction.
• Line details or document type where relevant: Needed when the review step depends on classification, quantities, or credit-note handling.

Reviewability matters just as much as extraction. Many finance teams want a spreadsheet or CSV they can inspect, correct, and map before posting into Priority. That is especially true when invoices come from multiple suppliers, contain mixed Hebrew and English labels, or need a human check before import. Generic OCR can read characters on the page, but that is not the same as producing normalized AP-ready data.

An extraction-first workflow is useful here when it gives the team factual control over what gets captured and how the output is verified. Invoice Data Extraction, for example, supports Hebrew and other right-to-left scripts, lets users specify the fields they want extracted, and returns structured Excel, CSV, or JSON files with references back to the source file and page. That combination matters because Hebrew support is not a marketing checkbox for Priority users. It is a core selection criterion that determines whether the output can be trusted for review and posting.

---

Why Israel's Allocation-Number Rollout Raises the Stakes

The allocation-number rollout is not the main reason most people search for Priority invoice scanning, but it does raise the cost of getting invoice capture wrong. Israeli AP teams now have a stronger reason to make sure invoice data is captured cleanly and reviewed before posting, especially when tax deductibility depends on fields being available and checked at the right time.

According to Israel Tax Authority guidance on allocation-number verification thresholds, allocation numbers are required for input-tax deductions on invoices above the legal threshold, which drops from NIS 10,000 on January 1, 2026 to NIS 5,000 on June 1, 2026. That is not just a tax-policy detail. It changes the risk profile for invoice handling inside Priority because more supplier invoices fall into the range where missing or poorly reviewed data can create downstream problems for AP and finance.

This is where SHAAM becomes a real workflow pressure point rather than a compliance acronym. As more invoices require closer scrutiny, fast OCR alone is not enough. Teams need invoice scanning into Priority to produce reliable, reviewable data so they can check the fields that matter before import or posting. In practice, that means capture workflows should make it straightforward to confirm supplier identity, invoice values, tax amounts, and any reference data the finance team uses before a transaction is accepted into the ERP.

If you need the broader background, see Israel's allocation-number rollout and why it matters for AP teams. The operational takeaway for Priority users is simple: cleaner intake and better review become more valuable as the threshold drops and more invoices demand careful handling.

---

Choose the Priority Workflow That Fits Your Team

If your team needs invoice capture tightly tied to PO validation, goods receipt checks, and approval routing, a Priority marketplace add-on is usually the first place to focus. If your wider goal is harmonizing controls across multiple entities or finance systems, a broader AP platform may deserve a closer look. If your team mainly wants to import invoices into Priority ERP after a controlled review step, an extraction-first workflow is often the better fit.

The safest review-before-posting model is straightforward. Extract the invoice data into a structured Excel or CSV file, review exceptions before import, confirm the fields your process depends on, and keep traceability back to the source document or page. That reduces the chance that bad data moves into Priority simply because the OCR layer produced something that looked plausible at first glance.

This is where CSV import and reviewable spreadsheet workflows have a clear advantage for some teams. They let finance users inspect the output before it becomes an ERP transaction. For organizations handling Hebrew supplier invoices, mixed layouts, or changing compliance pressure, that review step is often worth more than a deeper automation story on paper.

An extraction-first tool such as Invoice Data Extraction fits that model when the team wants reviewable Excel, CSV, or JSON outputs, prompt-level control over what fields are captured, and source-page references for verification before import. The decision, then, is not which vendor sounds most complete. It is which workflow matches your actual AP complexity, your Hebrew handling needs, and your tolerance for posting data before finance has reviewed it.

Before committing budget, run the shortlist against a representative batch rather than a single polished sample. Include invoices with Hebrew-heavy layouts, mixed Hebrew and English fields, different suppliers, lower-quality scans, and any documents where PO numbers or tax fields tend to cause trouble. If the output still requires heavy manual cleanup, the workflow is not ready for production no matter how strong the demo looked.

Before you shortlist vendors, pressure-test your own process with four questions: Do you need automated matching against POs or receipts? Do you need strong Hebrew and right-to-left invoice handling? Do you want a spreadsheet review step before import? Do you need one AP layer across multiple systems, or only a better Priority intake workflow? The answers usually make the right category obvious long before a demo does.