I mean, personally, I love the idea of just scanning all of my paper documents into a massive electronic database, but I'd really need to be able to trust the software. If something's closed-source, I'd be worried about everything from spyware to malicious bugs that might intentionally introduce errors (e.g., social-engineering attacks, or simple trolling) to unintentional bugs.
Not that open-source is a magical fix to everything, but it's a vast improvement over closed-source solutions.
In any case, OCRed documents needed anyway some serious editing/correcting
I also suspect that part of the good (or bad) results might be connected to the language in which the documents are written (Italian in my case) and the "width" of vocabulary used, and to the way the document is structured, in my case ther were often tables that for some reason were easily identified by Finereader and rarely or never by Tesseract.
In any case, I would say (without an actual measurement having been made) that roughly Tesseract was below or around 60% accuracy where Finereader was around 80%, possibly a little bit more.
But even if it was the best one (we tested also other softwares, cannot remember the names) even Finereader was far from being a "set and forget" kind of tool.
I would be curious to know how would you rate the word accuracy of your solution.
Anyway - and only as another data point - it was year 1986 (or possibly 1987) when I had Xerox representatives tell me that "soon" (meaning no more than a few years) the office would have become "paperless".
If you have a network enabled scanner than can scan straight to an ftp folder, these two server based projects  offer even more convenience.
The OCR is not too bad, but one of the things I'm going to do once I pop a few other projects off the stack is to see about using tesseract (and possibly custom training for it) on the generated raw TIFF files.