I'm less familiar with the Hebrew databases than with the Greek ones, but maybe someone else (David?) can answer this question for me.
I've assumed that Accordance and BibleWorks7 are both using the same iteration of Westminster morphology (4.4 according to Accordance's website and the same in BW documentation). I've also assumed that if I am right, their parsing info should agree. Now I could be wrong on either of those assumptions, but here are the discrepancies...
Ruth 1:22 the form: הַשָּׁ֖בָה shows up in BW as a Qal perfect, but in Accordance that same form is called a participle. (Now I understand the parsing disagreements, or the reasons why one would call it one and the other a different, but the question is shouldn't the two programs agree if they are using the same database --- here, BW appears to be correct)
Ruth 2:3 the form מִקְרֶ֔הָ shows up in BW as a common singular feminine construct noun; but in Accordance it is a common singular masculine construct noun; in this example there is some debate over which is correct, but the professor I talked to preferred Accordance's parsing
So anyway I found it odd that 1. the two databases disagreed and 2. the two parsing examples seemed to indicate that one version wasn't necessarily better than the other (since BW appeared right in the first case and Accordance in the latter).