Compare
Manual letter writing vs AutoDraft
Manual processes scale linearly with headcount: every extra ten letters means more paraplanner hours. Automation shifts work from re-keying and formatting to targeted review and exceptions.
| Criterion | Typical alternative | With AutoDraft |
|---|---|---|
| Speed to first draft | Hours per suitability or valuation pack | Minutes when data and templates are mapped |
| Error risk | Typos, version drift, inconsistent disclosures | Structured fields; remaining risk is data quality and edge cases |
| Audit trail | Often scattered across inboxes and file shares | System log linking outputs to sources and reviewers |
| Template updates | Advisers may use old Word files | Central template changes propagate to new drafts |
| Best when | Very low volume or one-off bespoke work | Repeating letter types with stable data feeds |
Most firms keep manual workflows for novel or ultra-high-risk cases, and use automation for the long tail of repeatable correspondence.