Best AI PDF Reader

What is the Top AI PDF Reader?

AI PDF Readers are now the standardized method by which users interact with and extract insights from PDF documents.

Compared to the past, the integration of AI with PDF tools streamlines the time-consuming process of combing through and analyzing lengthy PDF documents.

The continued integration of AI into the consumer and enterprise workflow, an inevitable outcome, should improve productivity and efficiency all across the board.

The time spent on performing repetitive, mind-numbing tasks–which constitutes a substantial proportion of the total work performed on a day-to-day basis–will soon be trimmed via automation.

Since most mundane, routine tasks can either be partially (or completely) automated, more time can be allocated towards the tasks deemed to matter, where strategic thinking and sound judgment are essential.

Therefore, we’ve compiled a list of the top AI PDF readers in the market, wherein the rankings reflect the tools perceived to offer the optimal features to enhance productivity and workflow efficiency.

Best AI PDF Readers: Comparative Analysis

AI PDF readers facilitate real-time interaction and enhance engagement with PDF documents, and accelerate the rate at which users can conceptualize and comprehend information at scale.

Since the commercial release of ChatGPT and the widespread adoption of GenAI tools, a common misconception is that all AI-integrated PDF readers offer equivalent utility.

However, that particular assumption could not deviate further from the truth—no need to take our word for it, just test out Acrobat AI Assistant.

The top AI PDF readers, ordered from most favorable to least, are as follows:

1. Macro
2. NotebookLM
3. Foxit
4. ChatPDF
5. Adobe Acrobat

The following table briefly skims through the core features and pricing of each respective AI PDF reader covered across our guide:

AI PDF Reader Ranking Criteria: Which Features Matter?

The criterion by which our rankings were determined was oriented around factual accuracy, since reliable output is a necessity for AI to be integrated into one’s workflow.

LLMs come with inherent limitations and flaws, irrespective of the rapid development in the space, because the output is probabilistic and the innate bias embedded in the training data set.

Citations can further compound the issue at hand, wherein many users are mislead and accept LMM-generated output as factual without verifying the source, which can often be a costly error.

The mere inclusion of citations on any given GenAI tool should not suffice on the subject of reliability of AI-generated output and tend to create a false sense of self-sufficiency—shout-out to Perplexity, the unmatched market leader at generating hallucinations with source citations.

Unlike humans with subject matter expertise, LLMs cannot contextualize the entirety of a given circumstance and frequently extrapolate assumptions unnecessarily.

The shortcomings of LLMs become even more apparent for domain-specific queries because the nuances inherent to the situation at hand are seldom recognized.

The most reliable AI PDF reader should, thereby, not only state the collective citations—but embed the source via in-text citations, for easier traceability (i.e. audit trail).

Once clicked, the linked in-line citation should navigate the user to trace the source material and discern the multi-step reasoning that coincides with the output, for the sake of verifying the validity of the insight.

In effect, the enhanced auditability contributes towards a more deterministic output, since a positive feedback loop is created, wherein the user can validate the merit, or lack thereof, to each insight (“trust but verify”).

1. Macro: AI PDF Reader

Macro is the modern, industry-standard AI PDF reader, seamlessly woven to integrate information from internal and external documents, ensuring accuracy, transparency and auditability.

The concept of traceability is a fundamental attribute of Macro, which was built to stitch the breakpoints in one's workflow and trim the friction that many encounter that disrupt productivity—all within one, unified platform.

Founded in 2021, Macro—formerly, known as CoParse—is on route to become the most cohesive, multi-modal intelligent document management platform in the market, backed by a16z, BoxGroup and Craft Ventures, among others.

The core architecture of Macro is oriented around the extraction and ingestion of content from internal and external documents, with support for standard file types (PDF, DOCX, Markdown).

Unlike most PDF tools in the market, Macro is an AI-native document management platform. Therefore, the integration of AI is deeply rooted in Macro, and each feature has thereby been continuously refined in tandem with emerging industry developments.

On that note, a marginal improvement in productivity is not enough, at least from our perspective. But rather, Macro was established to become the most reliable, intelligent document management workspace that meets the highest-standard in information retrieval and consistent generation of quality, grounded insights.

The embedding of AI as an intelligence layer onto any given productivity platform normally coincides with “clunkiness”, i.e. Notion, the all-in-one platform for unnecessary tools, features and integrations that most users have no need for.

But, of course, there can be exceptions to the rule, such as Macro, which features a light-weight, intuitive user interface, with built-in editors that support each standard file type, fully-integrated with AI.

Of particular note, the output of Macro contains linked sources to ensure each citation is traceable.

The in-line source linking for traceability constitutes an integral component of the platform, in which each statement is stitched back to the source material for the sake of auditability.

Clicking the AI Chat feature opens-up the side panel, where questions can be efficiently answered, with the option to select the structured output, or seamlessly transition to the built-in markdown editor with the auto-generated notes.

Citations are auto-generated and converted into embedded files, which can be referenced and clicked on to open up the side panel.

Historically, countless hours were spent combing through documents, such as market research reports, financial filings, and legal contracts by investment bankers, consultants, investors and lawyers.

The removal of friction, or inefficiencies at the workplace, were the pressing matters that Macro identified and set out to solve, and the enterprise clients that trust Macro should speak for itself.

In short, the less scrolling, the less tabs open and the less context switching—the better off one will be from a productivity standpoint.

Macro has emerged into the privacy-centric, secure document management platform of choice by the top investment banks, private equity firms, and law firms to organize, retrieve, and analyze information from all sorts of documents—not to mention, Macro routinely undergoes periodic audits for compliance with the highest standards for the safeguarding of user privacy and data security (SOC II Type 2, ISO 27001).

Macro’s AI PDF reader is integrated with the state-of-the-art foundational LLMs, including the latest models by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemini—with whom, Macro maintains Zero Data Retention (ZDR) agreements for enterprise-grade security and compliance with user data privacy guidelines.

The optimization of one’s performance on the job and improving throughput is directly tied to the removal of friction, or workflow efficiency.

If professionals at the top institutions advising clients on high-stake deal mandates opt to use Macro, entirely at their discretion, in lieu of competing products—there probably is a rationale supporting that decision.

Why? Figure that one out for yourself.

2. NotebookLM: Google Labs

NotebookLM is an AI-powered research assistant, grounded in the information extracted from the sources connected to the platform, built for usage by students, academic researchers and professionals.

NotebookLM, a personalized research companion integrated with internal and external sources, offers users with the option to convert distilled insights into multi-modal content.

Unique to NotebookLM, the tool extracts insights and connects patterns from the sources, with the trade-off being: the generated content deliberately remains nearby the information explicitly stated in the sources.

The in-line citations of NotebookLM is one of the features that stand out to consumers in the market, akin to Macro, since the sources tied to each insight can be audited with ease.

NotebookLM, however, is not merely an PDF reader, per se, because the platform's functional capabilities reach far beyond most productivity tools.

The most common criticism of NotebookLM is the limited in-context learning, from which, the output excludes much of the chat history unless manually saved.

The cache is outright cleared post-session unless a manual note is inserted with the text, or users can manually insert text into an editor such as Google Docs (or export to PDF via a different editor), and then upload the document as a source, which can be cumbersome, and consists of multiple steps that can disrupt one’s workflow.

But, in all fairness, NotebookLM is not meant to be a conversational chatbot with the user. The criticism is thus a function of a misalignment in user intent and the product concept.

The rationale for the exclusion of the user chat history is relatively straightforward, since the user-input queries and chat history frequently contain off-topic material, which could perhaps skew the output.

Said differently, NotebookLM cannot discern between which chat interactions should be included (or excluded), and thus the latter option is the risk-averse decision, a reasonable call by the developors at Google.

The knowledge and information is distilled from the sources uploaded, from which the retrieval mechanism (and thus, the depth of insights) is a direct byproduct.

The in-line citation structure of NotebookLM, wherein sources are linked, is one of the standout features.

However, one drawback to the in-line citations for NotebookLM is that the initial step, once a user uploads a PDF, is that only the text is extracted.

Therefore, there is no built-in PDF viewer in NotebookLM, contrary to Macro, which can link back to tables, charts and diagrams as displayed on the uploaded PDF.

The tabular data in which the income statement and revenue growth data of Adobe (ADBE) is formatted in the selected source (10-Q), for instance, can be traced via the in-line citations, but the side panel displays raw text, not a structured table.

Since the tabular data was extracted into text, and not formatted into a markdown table (or JSON), the raw text is less intuitive for purposes of auditing the accuracy of a particular insight—which not only reduces the traceability from the user-side, but the reasoning capabilities of Gemini.

The optionality to select (or deselect) sources to guide the output and focus on the concepts that matter to the task at hand requires constantly reiterating the prompt and instructions—contributing towards a broad variance in the podcast length and unpredictability in output.

The underlying LLM of NotebookLM was recently upgraded to Gemini 2.5 Flash, which is technically a reasoning-based model, yet more recognized for its speed (and extended token limit), compared to Gemini 2.5 Pro.

The problem with that sort of optionality to control not only the structure but the length of the output, coupled with the shortcoming of reasoning models, is that LLMs closely listen to instructions to a fault.

If a user generates podcast on a rather trivial subject with limited internal sources selected, expect some repetitiveness in the output or short-form content.

On the other hand, the "Discover" feature requires the user to select the external sources to pull from, which can cause the output to contradict itself at times or stray from the original intent.

But more importantly, reasoning LLMs are very good at logical reasoning, to the point of complete irrationality-i.e. LLMs are biased to formulate a response and can connect patterns between two detached concepts, even if the underlying assumptions are baseless.

The drawback to a seemingly infinite context window is the risk of information overload, from which the trade-off between broader scope and depth of insights must be recognized.

The upper parameter in the depth of insights is "capped" by the information contained in the sources, and refrains from straying too far from the source documents.

The reasoning-based LLMs tend to generate higher-quality, more reliable output on a more consistent-basis, if given more directional input and fewer sources to retrieve information from.

Still, NotebookLM stands as one of the most accurate, reliable tools to chat with multiple documents and outperforms most PDF apps, but that is more attributable to Gemini and the system prompt.

NotebookLM can distill information from a multitude of files, even if disorganized, yet that can be sub-optimal in certain scenarios ("garbage in, garbage out").

The recent traction in the consumer market of NotebookLM should only continue to accelerate in its upward trajectory, but one must recognize that NotebookLM is a project with ambitions that reach far beyond the traditional “chat with documents” interface.

There are two pricing plans for NotebookLM:

• NotebookLM: The standard plan is free for individual consumers and offers features that should meet the needs of most consumers, such as the option to upload multiple sources, create one-click summaries, generate Audio Overviews, and the chat interface to interact with documents (PDFs).
• NotebookLM Plus: The paid plan, offered via the Google One AI Premium subscription service, is priced at $19.99 per month. The premium plan contains all features in the standard plan but 5x more Audio Overviews, separate notebooks and sources, with more customization for style, output length and privacy measures.

However, AI generated automated podcasts and digital media are not everyone’s cup of tea, irrespective of the fact that knowledge work can extend far beyond standard information retrieval and text generation.

Sometimes, pen and paper can be preferable in lieu of other mediums to write, similar to how Macro could be the optimal choice for reading and asking questions to PDFs using AI, since the platform is more document-oriented.

Macro is built around hyper-efficiency, and the statement that the platform appeals to a certain subset of users who value their time and optimize their workflow would not be a far fetched assumption—which 90-minute podcasts are unlikely to be part of.

3. ChatPDF AI: Chat with PDF Documents

ChatPDF is an AI PDF reader with ChatGPT-style intelligence, purpose-built for smarter document understanding with multilingual support.

ChatPDF, on paper, facilitates easier comprehension of PDF documents by enabling users to ask questions to receive instant answers with linked citations.

The customer base (and target end market) seems to be predominantly undergraduate and graduate students, with a sub-set of academic researchers.

ChatPDF has a conversational interface, comparable to ChatGPT, except seemingly less intelligent.

The 10-K, 10-Q and earnings transcript of Adobe (ADBE) were uploaded to the platform, which required an unreasonable amount of time to process–but ChatPDF seemed quite ecstatic to generate sub-par responses.

In high-stake circumstances, clear and direct communication is preferable, not flattery (or "sycophancy").

The initial search query input for Adobe's 10-K stated:

"How did Adobe's business segments perform in 2024 relative to prior periods?"

For context, Adobe (ADBE) has three business segments: 1) Digital Media, 2) Digital Experience 3) Publishing and Advertising.

From initial glance, the units for the monetary figures are incorrect, because Adobe’s net revenue in the Digital Media segment was $15.86 billion and $14.22 billion in 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Therefore, the per-segment revenue figures were off by a couple decimal points—or three to be exact–which is a pretty material difference.

ChatPDF has linked citations but the user-interface is somehow not easy to navigate.

The friction stems from the cursor constantly switching between the selection (i.e. capture) and click mode on the extracted rows.

Citations should not be treated as proof of factual accuracy, as mentioned earlier–in fact, the citations of ChatPDF only proved the inaccuracy of the insights.

The sections highlighted by ChatPDF seldom contained the entirety of the source material necessary to validate the output, creating the necessity to manually comb through the filing–which sort of defeats the purpose of linked sources.

One of ChatPDF's core functionalities is the ability to chat with multiple documents at once, since the system will contextualize the filed uploaded to a folder, according to ChatPDF.

ChatPDF seems to struggle to accurately answer rather basic questions on even one PDF–let alone, understand the interconnectivity between multiple documents.

The next query input was an open-ended question pertaining to the underlying drivers of Adobe's revenue growth.

The LaTeX rendering of the ChatPDF platform is in need of improvement, but much easier said than done.

The commentary surrounding the growth in the Digital Media segment was illegible, and the generated text blended the growth rate in net revenue recognized under U.S. GAAP and annual recurring revenue (ARR).

ChatPDF is offered under two pricing plans:

• Free Plan: ChatPDF offers a free plan, where users can chat with a maximum of two PDFs per day.
• Plus Plan: ChatPDF Plus plan with the "High Quality Model" is priced at $14.99 per month, while the yearly plan is priced at $7.58 per month, which is roughly an 50% discount.

Based on the FAQ section of the site, the underlying LLM used by ChatPDF is GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini, with dynamic routing implied to be part of the platform, i.e. the model selected automatically switches to the optimal choice, upon understanding the user-input query.

But GPT-4o (or "omni") was released in May 2024, while GPT-4o-mini was released in July 2024–both of which are the default models used in the free version of ChatGPT.

The side-by-side interface has become the industry-wide norm–as a matter of fact–and clickable citations that scroll to the page containing the source material is a feature that might not be standardized in the PDF industry but is starting to obtain traction.

Still, footnotes, or citations placed at the bottom, remain the most frequent method to cite sources, which are either near impossible (or more challenging) to track down the source material.

The accuracy of each linked citation, whereby the reasoning that underpins the insights can be verified, is the factor of utmost importance.

ChatPDF, evidently, recognizes the necessity of linked citations, yet the clear disconnect between the linked citations and output points towards the existence of a more urgent, underlying issue at play.

There are certain products, such as iA Writer and Macro, where the simplicity of the product design and light-weight user interface (UI) can be quite deceiving.

The user starts to recognize the time and effort put into each seemingly menial component and feature to craft the best user experience and smoothest interface, only with time.

In contrast, there are products with simple interfaces marketed as minimalistic, which is merely a front for sub-par product design and poor engineering, with more time spent on optimizing the landing page in lieu of improving the core product and user experience.

Frankly, ChatPDF felt like the Temu version of ChatGPT in a nutshell.

The most positive attribute of ChatPDF is the pricing (and the 50% discount offered via email).

But if the use-case of a PDF reader is tied to one's performance on the job or in academia, the quality and reliability of the tool should matter most, not pricing.

If a product's main selling point is affordability (or the fact that it's free), there normally is a reason, exceptions aside.

By opting to choose a sub-optimal tool, you would be doing yourself and your career a disfavor, for the mere benefit of discounted pricing.

ChatPDF still offers some other features, such as the option to export the chat log as a text file, PowerPoint slides and flashcards.

Unfortunately, the output–such as the PowerPoint deck–does not seem to abide by any sort of logical hierarchy (and one could make the case that editing the file offsets the marginal benefit of an auto-generated PowerPoint).

One does not need to be a management consultant at McKinsey or Bain to recognize that the PowerPoint slides would not even suffice as an initial draft.

There is no price tag that one can place on the quality of their work, whether in a professional setting, academics, or personal.

The quality of a product on the engineering side is oftentimes subtle, where users might not appreciate the design and refined details until the features are missing.

But words are cheap, like ChatPDF, so sign-up for ChatPDF and then subscribe to Macro upon verifying that our platform is on a different tier compared to ChatPDF.

4. Foxit Software: AI Assistant

Foxit is an established software company, specializing in PDFs, and widely recognized for its clean, easy-to-use interface, particularly for PDF markup.

The Foxit PDF Editor features a user-friendly, light-weight interface, and currently stands as one of the most widely used PDF markup tools in the market, considered by many to be a cost-effective, better alternative to Adobe Acrobat.

For a multitude of reasons, the Foxit PDF Editor Pro is perceived as one of the best tools for standard PDF markup, such as eSignatures, annotations, and form filling.

In short, the prime appeal of Foxit was the simplicity of the layout and ease-of-use, where any user can easily complete a task, such a signing a contract on a secure platform.

Foxit AI, on the other hand, is the recently integrated AI document intelligence layer–which from our perspective, should be peeled off.

There is no question that Foxit PDF Editor is a reliable PDF markup solution that deserves much recognition–however, with that being said: not all tools need to be “intelligent”.

Broadly speaking, Foxit’s customer base expect standard PDF markup features that work, right out-the-box. GenAI features does not fall under the purview of Foxit, nor do customers expect Foxit to be an intelligent PDF suite.

The pricing differential between the PDF Editor+ and standard PDF Editor is merely $3.00 per month. Or, the AI Assistant can be purchased on an individual basis at $4.99 per month for existing users, an upsell composed of 2,000 credits.

The Foxit AI User Guidelines states the following disclaimer:

“Do not use Foxit’s AI solutions to replace medical, legal, financial, or other kind of professional expertise.”

Our personal recommendation is to not use Foxit AI at all, because the $4.99 AI integration is overpriced by approximately $4.99.

The decision to offer the AI Assistant as an optional add-on is unfortunately commendable, since software vendors now resort to integrating unneeded features, as part of a forced upsell.

The optionality to automate a certain task is not necessarily indicative that one should, since the downside risk of a mistake must be compared to the potential upside, i.e. consider the risk-return tradeoff.

The pricing of the Foxit PDF Editor is set at $129.99 per year, whereas the PDF Editor+ is priced at $159.99 per year—the net difference quantifies the monetary loss incurred from a poor decision.

• Foxit PDF Editor: $129.99/year
• Foxit PDF Editor+: $159.99/year

Historically, the utility of Foxit has long been for signing contracts, markup and editing PDFs, such as eSignatures—not reading and analyzing PDFs.

Given the quality of Foxit AI Assistant, the prior statement is improbable to change into the foreseeable future, in spite of the pivot to rebrand as an "intelligent document solution" and "platform for all your digital document needs".

Therefore, for users in need of a standard, easy-to-use PDF markup tool, the Foxit PDF Editor is a reliable, cost-effective option.

However, the roll-out of Foxit PDF Editor+ with the AI integration seems like a step in the wrong direction.

5. Adobe Acrobat Pro: AI Assistant

Adobe Acrobat Pro, part of the comprehensive Adobe Suite, is widely recognized as the industry-standard for PDF tools.

The “comprehensive” designation is normally perceived as complimentary—not here, however.

There is a fine-line between bundling software tools for the sake of creating a seamless, integrated user experience, and "mashing" as much tools into a so-called productivity suite to extract more profits from users.

The latter has become common practice, unfortunately, particularly among legacy software vendors.

The moment stakeholder value takes precedence over optimizing software on behalf of one's user base, the inevitable outcome is a decline in product quality, often accompanied by the loss of trust among consumers.

On the subject of Adobe's AI Assistant, the tool is near impractical. In fact, even the product demo clip published on Adobe's site for promotional purposes illustrates errors.

The assets under management (AUM) of the hypothetical firm, ApexAlpha Capital, is stated to have ended the quarter with $120 billion, an increase of 10% from the prior period (Y/Y).

Yet, the AI Assistant of Adobe–in response to a search query on revenue trends–incorrectly states the firm's revenue achieved a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10% across the trailing five years.

The AUM of an investment firm is not the revenue of a firm–likewise, Adobe is not the industry-standard for PDF tools, at least not anymore.

The AI Assistant of Adobe not only takes a long period to process even simple queries, but frequently answers the wrong question, completely missing the mark.

Off topic, akin to Adobe's AI Assistant: the PDF reader of Macro has many subtle, yet practical product features, such as tabs to navigate documents–not many of our users are even aware of the feature, yet once learnt–most realize the sheer amount of time wasted scrolling pages.

Or, to deviate even further from the topic at hand–comparable to Adobe's continued pivot from serving individual consumers to enterprise clients–here is a clip of Macro's automated bullet point feature, where merely highlighting text creates a concise list summarizing the highlighted text:

The text selection feature of Macro can be customized to auto-run on the text selected, comparable to macros in Excel, except for analyzing documents.

Sometimes, the most time-consuming inefficiencies can become habitual to the point that one might not even recognize the time erosion, from using CTRL + F and scrolling section-to-section.

For example, suppose a user mistakenly forgot the full-form legal definition of the abbreviation, sort of like Adobe's customers that forgot to cancel their free trial.

In Macro, the user can click on the pre-tagged term, "APM" to navigate to the section earlier, where the pricing plans of Adobe are stated (and revert to the original page) to continue reading through Adobe's deceitful business practices, with minimal time wasted.

The tab navigation feature of Macro, positioned at the top left corner, might be easy to miss, similar to Adobe's pricing terms and early-cancellation charge in the terms of service agreement.

But, the former can save substantial time, whereas the latter causes consumers to incur an unexpected, substantial fee.

The downfall of Adobe can be attributed to the shift in prioritization from building software on behalf of maximizing shareholder value, at the expense of consumer trust and product design.

Adobe Suite is no longer a simple, intuitive product suite, but an ecosystem of poorly-integrated apps and features, which stems from trailing too far from its core values.

Adobe has quite a bit of subtraction to complete, per the insightful commentary from Scott Belsky.

The free plan of Adobe Acrobat cannot be used without encountering constant ad-like, pop-ups–nor can one even unsubscribe from the most popular subscription plan without incurring a early-termination fee, a deceitful practice, to say the least.

In short, trust is built bottom-up at the consumer-level–which Adobe, evidently, either does not understand or has a different set of conflicting priorities.

While legacy software solutions, such as Adobe, are trying to brute-force the integration of AI into their product suite, patching up bugs in real-time–AI-native apps, such as Macro, move at a much quicker pace, with continuous product refinement.

The pricing tiers of Adobe Acrobat and the corresponding features are as follows:

• Acrobat Reader: Free
• Acrobat Standard: $22.99/month
• Acrobat Pro: $29.99/month
• Acrobat AI Assistant (Add-On): $6.99/month

The prices stated in the section above reflect the rates paid on a "Monthly" basis, without annual billing, for the sake of an "apples to apples" comparison.

Said differently, Adobe charges a discounted rate on the "Annual, billed monthly" plan, which put the company in an unfavorable position, from a legal perspective.

Of course, one could argue the terms of service (ToS) of Adobe stated that an early cancellation will trigger a fee, and thus, the party at fault is the customer.

However, the fact that only a minority of consumers read the terms prior to subscribing is common knowledge, which certain companies like Adobe capitalize on to reap a near-term monetary benefit, with the trade-off being irreparable reputational damage.

Therefore, one could also easily make the case: Adobe knew exactly what they were doing.

The decision to implement deceitful practices comes at a steep price–a statement that Adobe (and their attorneys) can likely corroborate, given the fact that there is a pending investigation being conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated around the mid-point of 2024 for deceiving customers via the early termination fee.

Why Macro?

From a high-level, ease-of-use, practicality, privacy, and of course–transparency–are some of the foundational values at Macro that dictate the direction of our product engineering and strategic decisions.

Adobe, in more ways than one, serves as a source of inspiration for Macro, on how not to build software and run a business, particularly on the topic of consumer trust.

The objective of Macro is for our users to complete a weeks worth of work in a matter of a day–but a set of tasks can be "done" or "done right", and our preference is the latter.

The continued adoption of AI and integration into the workflow of consumers and enterprises is a secular shift, not a short-term trends, that will only continue to accelerate and soon become the norm, much earlier than most anticipate.

The usage of AI as a research companion to systematize one’s workflow and understand information from documents, such as PDFs, is a net positive–not only on the productivity side but in flattening the learning curve for comprehending intricate concepts.

Contrary to legacy software companies, such as Adobe–the king of “bloatware”–Macro has been a step ahead of the curve on the AI front.

GenAI productivity tools, such as Macro, must continuously reinforce the distinction between leveraging AI to accelerate the cadence at which one can conceptualize information and recognize patterns to facilitate higher-quality work, rather than a tool to displace critical thinking ("hands-off").

In closing, Macro is still a relatively early-stage startup and our product is a work-in-progress (WIP), akin to each of our users and their respective personal lives and careers.

There is much uncertainty in the market, at present, since the emergence of GenAI and the inevitable disruption risk spread widely across all domains.

Still, the core values of Macro will continue to remain unchanged—which we can state with absolute, utmost certainty—irrespective of any external circumstance.

At Macro, the mission of our team is the completion of your mission–therefore, pretty fair to state that Macro is "purpose-built" for you to achieve the outcome currently under pursuit.