UiPath Reviews

We are using the solution to create application reports. What we've done is take all of that information, where somebody was initially doing everything as it happened, and create templates that work in another application. Due to our business model, we have multiple applications that are similar but very different. Rather than have somebody go into this application and update it and then go to another application and put in the same information, we've developed bots. We'd go to the template, input the information one time, and let the bots go in and open up the other applications.

The solution has improved the organization just by freeing up the resources to do that MBA work so that the bots can actually do things for you.

We use the solution's UiPath app feature. It has helped to reduce the workload of our IT department by enabling end-users to create apps. That said, I myself am in IT and not a developer.

The UiPath’s apps feature has increased the number of automation created while reducing the time it takes to create them. We're just now starting with that. We’ve only got 10 bots in production. We've got another eight in development right now.

Likely, the automation we’ve created has saved us probably in the neighborhood of one full-time person.

The solution’s ease of use and the UI is great, specifically for the users. Not necessarily the developers. The people actually using it find it very easy to use.

In terms of the ease of building automation, from what I've seen, I'm very impressed. We're using a partner. We built the COE and everything that they're developing right now. Obviously, we're just starting down this path. This means we're going to go work with a partner while we're developing our own guys. We can get to market quicker.

We've got our own VA. The next step will be looking into building our own developers.

The solution has reduced human error. There are still errors in the templates. People still have errors with bigger things, however, we're able to catch it before it gets into any of the applications. Reading the information across the other applications, you can stop it before it gets synchronized into the applications due to the fact that it is the same source. It doesn't go into "A" if it's not going into “B”, for example.

This has had a big impact on our business. In our model, it's a little complex as our customers are our clients. For example, in the ATM business, they charge us a fee, so we partner with a large retailer like Walgreens or CVS and we share the revenue. We actually pay our customers as they use our services. With the help of UiPath, we’re able to keep everything synchronized. We’re not sending stuff to the wrong site, or to the wrong corporate headquarters.

The solution has freed up employee time due to the amount of work that it's doing. We’ve got just one bot and it can do triple the work, covering three full-time employees in a week. Likely, existing employees now can focus on higher-value work, including more customer-facing tasks. We're getting a lot of financial requests and maintenance. They require human interfacing rather than doing manual transactions.

I can’t think of any direct places where improvements need to happen. Whatever I need, it appears to be there. That said, any app could use some form of improvement.

I've been using the solution for a year now.

The stability is very good.

I don't see an issue with scalability. We are nowhere near capacity yet.

While I have not dealt with technical support directly, I have not heard anything bad from anyone.

We did not use a different RPA solution beforehand. About two years ago, in the second quarter, that's when we started opening our eyes to the possibility of automation.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We have a partner that assisted in the implementation. 

From the time we signed up until the time of setting up the COE and then getting going, it might have been a few days to deploy the solution.

We have a partner that has assisted us in the implementation process. 

Everything that we've done so far, due to the fact that we run everything through COE and then submit semi-annual budgets, has been good. From the perspective of everything we submitted so far, we've been pleased.

Over and above the subscription fees, we're paying probably $51,000 a year right now.

The pricing is okay. It's not out of balance with what it offers. We are definitely getting value for it. 

We didn't really evaluate other options. We were new to it, and we had a partner that steered us towards UiPath.

At this time, we do not use the solution's AI functionality in our automation program. We also have not yet used UiPath’s Academy courses. We may in the future.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are using Orchestrator and robots.

Our primary use for this solution is Accounts Payable invoice automation.

We run automations in the virtual environment provided by the Amazon service. Our implementation has been finicky at times. The latest release is a lot more stable, but I've had a two-week production outage where DLLs weren't registered and someone from Vegas had to log in for eight hours to our servers. They had to uninstall and reinstall the solution, as well as all of the different apps. I lost a bit of faith in the solution with that incident.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four. It's pretty easy to use, but it wouldn't be a five because it isn't doing everything for me. Things still need to be done.

I have not taken the Academy training but my team has. On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a four.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately two weeks. The process was pretty straightforward.

With respect to saving time, the last company I worked with was trying to save one thousand FTE. So far, they are already at sixty FTE, and in Australia, we're at ten FTE.

This solution has helped us to reduce human errors, although it has created other errors.

Orchestrator has a lot of good features including the configuration, the queues, the transaction reporting, the logs, and accessibility.

This technology gives you the ability to build a solution using any legacy system.

I would like to see more support for the cloud in Australia.

A tool that better identifies the processes, watches the computer and works it out for me, would be an improvement.

The stability of this solution has improved since we started using it. Now that I have done an upgrade, it seems to be a lot better.

I was running High-Density on the 2016.2 or 2016.3 version, and I had a lot of problems. I couldn't determine whether they were just UiPath issues or it could be partly attributed to the client app. What we noticed was that if you log in as Console, you have far fewer issues than if you run High-Density.

These days, I would rate the stability a four out of five. 

We had between fifty and a hundred people working in the automation program in the old company.

I have only used technical support once and my experience with them was not good. That was during our two-week outage.

We used Blackbook.ai to assist us with our implementation and our experience with them was awesome. 

We have seen ROI from this solution in terms of money saved. Just in Australia, we have saved a million dollars. In India, we have saved maybe five million dollars.

At the last company I worked with, the annual licensing fees were $700,000 USD.

From a cost perspective, I have an issue with the price of the bots. At the company that I was with previously, we were paying $3,600 USD per bot. With the new company that I am at, because we're new and we don't have the size, we are paying $8,000 USD per bot.

It was 2016 when I evaluated this solution, and it had a small market share at the time.

Everything I had read about Blue Prism said that it was too heavy, too old school, and had too much development ramp-up time. I looked at Automation Anywhere and UiPath. Automation Anywhere had a good price point, especially for a PoC. However, in between Blackbook.ai and what I saw out of UiPath, I felt that UiPath was the better option.

This solution is pretty good. It's an enabler. There is a lot of investment and a lot of new things. My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to make sure that it is set up to scale correctly.

What I would like to see is everything as a SaaS, completely, bots included, and I want it hosted in Australia.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're starting within our finance group, so a lot of different processes in our finance group are being automated. Our main project was for our tax department, extracting data from PDFs and putting them into Excel.

We have two people involved with RPA in our company.

We just purchased this solution last week so we're still installing everything. We did automate four processes with the community edition. The length of time in development varied by the process. The longer ones required help from UiPath. They came on-site for the PoC, so that helped us out. Some other easy ones we just did ourselves within a couple of days.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would say that it is a four. But with Studio X, I think it will probably be a five. I say four because as you get more complicated with your processes, you need to learn how to code and there's a brunt learning curve. A lot of people will get turned off by that. So, I made some good sessions with Studio X, it's all drag and drop, mostly, so that's perfect for the business users.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. We are actually in the process of taking it right now. It's good that they have something like that available. There are not that many who have aced it.

So far we haven't gone too far, but I expect that people will be a lot happier because they won't be doing the jobs that they don't like doing. They'll have more time to learn and up-skill technologies like this, which can help further their careers rather than just learning, or not learning by copying and pasting.

The most valuable feature is automating processes and tasks, giving users time for more value-added activities. This results in cost savings.

The free community edition allowed us to test out the technology before investing in it.

I would like a better ability to connect and integrate with other software systems. An example would be integration with data and business intelligence tools. I don't think they have a native connector yet. So, just something that a user can connect, and have RPA in the middle, would be helpful.

I would also like to see an easier UI for the user. It may have already been taken care of with Studio X, but I think if they keep improving that, it's going to get a lot of people interested because users are attracted to it.

We were just using community edition for about six months.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. I mean we haven't used it too much so we haven't really pushed the boundaries, but for the stuff we've, done I would say it is stable.

Their sales and pre-sales support is very good. They've been very willing to come onsite and help us out and help with our pilot as well.

We got introduced by RPA from PWC. They came and talked at one of our finance summits.

The paid version, I'm still learning how to use, how to connect everything together. There is still a little learning period for that as well. Learning how Orchestrator works, how the licensing works and things like that, were necessary after using the community edition.

UiPath helped us with our PoC and they were great. I mean they came for free and through just a pilot or a proof of concept. We could actually see if the technology works for a use case.

Before we start anything we evaluate the process and we take down how many hours it saves, the costs, and ROI. In our main project, it took someone approximately three hundred hours a year to do all that data extraction, data input, and that also came along with errors because someone could fat-finger the value.

Then, through the PoC, they're able to turn around within two days. A bot can basically do that entire process and do it error-free as well.

It is a savings of three-hundred hours, and the cost savings is a multiplier of hourly pay.

We also use it as an ETL tool sometimes, so instead of paying for an API connection, we can use RPA. Simply just to run a simple report of the system.

I don't have any other software vendors to compare it to, but I would say if you're fully utilizing it then there's definitely an ROI in it. Obviously, if you have only one process running five minutes a day with the bot, it's not worth it. For us, what we did was we built enough use cases before we bought that enterprise license to make the ROI on it. We've got eight or ten and then we realized that we can cover that license cost easily with ROI before we purchased it.

Ultimately, we realized ROI within six months.

We got purchased the basic minimum package and it was around $35,000 USD, annually.

We tested out Kryon RPA, and we looked but did not test Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. Those two were out of our price range, and at that time, neither of them had a free community edition, so we couldn't test out the technology.

UiPath sort of fit our company well because it was priced reasonably, and they also had a free version so we could test out the technology. Ultimately, we chose UiPath because of the price. It was not as expensive as Blue Prism or Automation Anywhere. It has a free community version where you can test new technology, which was huge. They also have a local office next to us so we can get their help pretty easily.

They have announced features in the next release, and I think that they are all the things that users would want. There are easier ways to document processes and a better and more user-friendly UI. A lot of people just got turned off by having to learn code. So that was a lot easier, and then being able to track all your RPA projects and the ROI on them saves time. Doing them manually is time-consuming. Fortunately, we're a small company because I couldn't imagine if you're trying to implement this for a bigger company.

My advice for anybody who is researching this solution is to, first of all, do their own research on the ratings and independent research. Secondly, I would just say a lot of them now have free community editions, so there's nothing holding you back from testing out the technology and seeing if it works. I think Blue Prism is the only one that doesn't have it now. That's a really high cost and a barrier to seeing if the technology works. Just going and validating the software and doing a simple automation task is important. All of those vendors have free training so you can just go step-by-step and learn something. I think that's the biggest thing someone can do, and then obviously finding enough processes within your company as well.

This is a good solution but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I piloted the introduction of UiPath to my team with two projects. The first, domain monitoring, automated our ten-plus Pega applications' quarterly security and health checks. We designed an architecture that could be mapped across all domains, streamlining the process to run weekly instead of quarterly. This provided timely reports on application health via Webex. The second project was a more straightforward test suite automation for another UI-based application. These two successful pilot projects showcased the capabilities of UiPath, with the domain monitoring still in use today.

Building automation with UiPath is straightforward, but it's essential to be familiar with the target application and have a basic understanding of coding and if-else statements. This knowledge will help troubleshoot any unexpected errors. Overall, I'd rate the ease of building automation with UiPath an eight out of ten.

While working on the projects, we used two versions of UiPath: the enterprise and cloud versions. The orchestrator that comes with the enterprise version is different from the cloud version. The cloud version had better end-to-end automation, and the ease of use and accessibility were superior to those of the enterprise orchestrator, which is the on-premise version of UiPath. Although the enterprise version lacks a few features, the cloud version provides a complete solution.

I was impressed by UiPath's user community. We used an open-source library that someone else had built and generously shared with the UiPath community. It ideally suited our needs. The user community is also very responsive, and we readily receive answers to our questions.

We didn't see immediate benefits from UiPath because it was a new tool I was piloting. We had to prove to upper management that it saved significant time, and we eventually eliminated manual testing. It took until the project's end to demonstrate this, as management focuses on results, not processes. However, other teams adopted UiPath after completion, so benefits appeared after two or three months. It took time to get people on board, but they eventually embraced the idea.

UiPath has significantly improved our efficiency by automating domain and application monitoring, saving valuable time and working hours. These tasks were previously quite intensive and repetitive, demanding considerable focus and effort from our employees. With UiPath handling these processes, we've freed up our workforce to take on more engaging and strategic responsibilities.

My favorite aspect of UiPath is its user-friendly interface, as it's a no-code, low-code platform that eliminates the need for extensive coding. Its drag-and-drop functionality, coupled with UiPath's comprehensive library suite, simplifies automation tasks. For instance, the Microsoft Outlook and SharePoint libraries allow seamless integration with those platforms, streamlining processes like connecting to SharePoint in Microsoft 365. In essence, the combination of UiPath's robust infrastructure and versatile tools significantly enhances its usability and effectiveness.

I found the UiPath Academy courses to be a bit rigid in their curriculum. It was more beneficial for me to learn from the forums and YouTube videos. Their courses were tailored to particular roles, with a course on UiPath in data science being heavily focused on Excel. While it was a well-structured course, it didn't align with my job's limited use of Excel. Overall, their courses are well-built, but I found YouTube a more suitable learning platform for my needs.

UiPath Studio provides comprehensive tools and libraries for building automation, but it lacks a built-in feature to generate consolidated reports after automation runs, detailing successes, failures, and operational features. This absence of detailed logging information makes it difficult to troubleshoot issues and identify whether the problem lies within the application or the automation itself. While UiPath's orchestrator website provides some information, it's insufficient for demonstrating automation runs and accomplished features to stakeholders. Although a future release may address this, the lack of robust reporting capabilities remains a significant area for improvement. Additionally, UiPath's diverse suite of licenses can confuse end-users, making it challenging to determine the most suitable option. While the company has improved features, the increased number of licenses creates a knowledge gap between what's available and user understanding. Clearer explanations of each license would simplify decision-making for potential users and streamline adoption.

I have been using UiPath for one year.

Once we have the licensed version of UiPath, we don't anticipate issues with caching. We were using the 2021 Studio version because it was stable. Although the UiPath team suggested upgrading, I'm not certain about the reasons. I can't comment on the latest models, but the 2021 version was reliable.

The scalability of UiPath depends on the number of licenses. To deploy our automation, we need to utilize robots responsible for executing the automation we've built in a user-less environment. Scalability is directly proportional to the number of robots we have, which is, in turn, determined by the number of licenses. Therefore, more licenses translate to greater scalability.

The initial onboarding of UiPath was straightforward, but the only challenge we encountered was connecting UiPath Studio to the Orchestrator. UiPath Studio is where automations are built, while the Orchestrator is where they are deployed and run. This required some back-and-forth with the product team and my technical lead. However, this issue only arises during the initial setup. Once someone familiar with the process sets it up, it becomes easier. There were some challenges connecting and deploying the first automation, specifically between the Orchestrator and Studio.

Three people were involved in the deployment: my technical lead, who liaised with the product team to discuss progress and challenges; myself, responsible for building and deploying the automation; and one of my junior colleagues, who assisted me. In short, we had a three-person team.

We used UiPath and built and deployed that project, which ran successfully for approximately two quarters while I was away. However, the cost and licensing associated with UiPath became an issue. The license we were using offered excellent features specific to our needs, but it didn't provide much beyond that. It didn't make sense to continue spending much money on UiPath, even though it saved us time and money. The savings were essentially being reinvested back into purchasing the UiPath license. While UiPath licenses offer valuable features, they are expensive. For our single-use case, investing that much wasn't justifiable. We switched to Selenium, an open-source automation tool. Although it took additional time to deploy the same solution with Selenium, and it might not be a 100 percent match in functionality, it allowed us to save on costs.

The cost of UiPath is justified for organizations with many use cases but not for one or two use cases.

I give UiPath a seven out of ten.

The advice I'd like to give new UiPath users is to first understand their specific use case for UiPath. I've noticed some teams try to adopt UiPath by first figuring out a solution and then trying to retrofit it to their existing problems. Instead, I suggest thoroughly understanding the problem before creating a solution. Many teams see others using UiPath and assume it's a cool new tool they can simply apply to their existing issues. This approach rarely leads to optimal results. You might be able to build a solution, but it won't be the most efficient. For first-time users, I recommend understanding your problem, then exploring UiPath's capabilities to determine the best solution. There are plenty of resources available, like forums and YouTube, to help with the building process. Remember, understand the problem first, then build the solution.

There are multiple use cases. We have use cases for the ticketing system for assigning the ticket, resolving or maybe closing the ticket, and opening a new ticket. We also have a business use case related to insurance. I worked for an insurance client, and by using automation, we could create a policy that is used for testing purposes. If they had a new enhancement or an issue, they wanted to test whether it was working properly or not. They provided us with some raw data, and we tested that.

UiPath enables us to implement end-to-end automation. It is very important for us.

We use the AI functionality in our automation program. It helps us with decision-making. The AI functionality has enabled us to automate more processes overall.

UiPath speeds up digital transformation and reduces the cost of digital transformation.

UiPath definitely minimizes the operational expenses. By automating the static tasks that people are doing on a daily basis, there is a reduction.

UiPath reduces human errors. With static tasks, such as data entry, there are more chances of human error. With robots, there is less chance for error.

UiPath frees up employee time for other tasks. By automating static processes, we can save time and utilize it for other tasks.

UiPath definitely saves costs, but we cannot fully replace humans with robots. A human is required in certain cases. We can reduce at least 70% of manual tasks and for maybe 20% to 30% of tasks, we need human intervention.

The IDP feature is most valuable in UiPath because there are a lot of invoices and bills in every company. If they want to extract from a scanned document, it is very useful.

UiPath is very easy. We can build very complex processes within a few days.

UiPath has a very good community. If I am facing some issues, it is very easy to get the help of the community. They provide a solution very fast if I post an issue there.

UiPath Academy is good for learning purposes and certifications. They have beginner courses and advanced courses. By using them, it is easy to implement UiPath in a real-life project or process.

When it comes to decision-making, the robot will work based on what we feed it. It will not take any decision at runtime the way a human can. If they can put more intelligence in the robot for decision-making, it will definitely be beneficial for us. For example, if something is not working and it can dynamically decide at runtime what would be the next step, it will be beneficial.

Additional features such as chatbots and AI should be included in the UiPath itself. UI development is another thing. It could be improved for web development and app development.

I have more than six years of experience with UiPath. I have also worked with Automation Anywhere for a year, but I am more familiar with UiPath.

It is scalable. They have ML and also Python. They are adding a few more features.

We have around 1,000 people using UiPath. We have different groups in our company. We have separate teams. There are multiple different tools. UiPath is in one vertical. Automation Anywhere is in a separate vertical. 

Most of the time, if we raise a ticket, they help us to resolve the issue. I would rate their support a seven out of ten. The response time is as per the issue. Sometimes, it is very fast, and at other times, I have to wait for a day or two to get help from UiPath, so I have had both good and bad experiences with their support.

Neutral

I have worked with Automation Anywhere. I have also done scripting, but I had to write a lot of code to automate, whereas, with UiPath, it is simple. It is drag and drop.

It is deployed on-premises. There was no issue at all in deploying it.

For the deployment of bots, we have different VM servers. They are unattended ones. The deployment of bots is a very simple task. 

I can do the deployment myself. It is not a big task.

It saves six to seven hours for one person in a day. It saves the cost of one FTE, which is very high in US dollars. It is more than the cost of a robot. There are definitely savings. If the utilization is more, the savings would be more.

When I started with UiPath, there was a desktop model, and we did not have to purchase Orchestrator. Now, there is a bundle or package of Orchestrator with attended or unattended robots, so the cost is a little bit on the higher end. They are selling the Orchestrator model or the admin model. If someone wants to purchase the standalone or desktop model, they cannot do that, so the cost is on the higher side, but if we purchase more licenses, it gets reduced. If we purchase fewer licenses, it will be high.

If you have good use cases, I would advise using UiPath. Compared to other tools, UiPath is very easy to learn. A trial version of UiPath is easily available, whereas the trial version of Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism is not easily available. Automation Anywhere provides a trial version nowadays, but previously, it was very difficult to train people on that. That is the reason UiPath is the market leader at this time.

I would rate UiPath an eight out of ten.

We are a partner of UiPath and a system integrator for our clients.

For most clients, we tend to begin by focusing on areas with the highest potential for automation. This typically includes finance, procurement, or HR functions, with the first two being the most common choices. These areas are chosen because their processes are generally stable and repetitive, making them ideal starting points for RPA implementation.

However, our experience doesn't end with just one client. We've had numerous engagements, including with large, multi-company groups. Once one division like the "glass division" successfully implemented RPA, it often sparked interest in other divisions like the pharmaceutical division. Demonstrating a solid proof of concept makes it easier to scale the technology to diverse use cases across the organization.

Ultimately, overcoming the initial hesitation and showcasing the tool's benefits is crucial. Once the value becomes apparent, a shift often occurs, transitioning from a client-driven demand to a proactive push from various departments eager to eliminate tedious manual tasks.

While we haven't encountered any major technical roadblocks, understanding the potential for automation has been the primary challenge for users. Initially, we also faced some learning curve hurdles during the first few projects. However, as our internal expertise matured, approximately 80 to 90 percent of use cases have been implemented smoothly with minimal or no support from UiPath. It's clear that effectively identifying tasks suitable for automation versus those requiring human intervention has been the key hurdle. From a purely technical standpoint, the capabilities have been readily achievable.

While UiPath facilitates end-to-end automation, its feasibility heavily relies on the specific use case and associated tuning costs. The decision to automate isn't solely driven by cost reduction, but also by the number of tedious tasks it can alleviate for employees. Clients are often eager to free their workforce from such repetitive drudgery, especially if the task is long-standing and well-defined. In these scenarios, full automation often presents a compelling value proposition.

The UiPath user community exists on two levels. First, there's the general UiPath user community, managed by UiPath itself. This broader community offers a valuable resource for learning, sharing experiences, and finding solutions. Second, once a UiPath instance is set up within a specific client's environment, a smaller user community emerges within that client's organization. While this internal community may seem less significant, its role in supporting individual users in tackling automation challenges is crucial. By sharing their experiences and overcoming difficulties, these internal user communities can act as "roll cages" for individual functions, providing guidance and support regardless of the specific challenges encountered.

Initially, our focus was solely on on-premise solutions. In fact, up until last year, I hadn't encountered a single client who had implemented their RPA solution on the cloud. This was primarily because we catered to a mainly small business clientele. However, the landscape has shifted significantly, with more and more cloud-native solutions emerging. This shift has been driven, in part, by the cost-effectiveness of cloud-based options. One of the major roadblocks to cloud adoption in the past was the pricing of the orchestrator. While it might be suitable for supporting large client bases with thousands of users, it wasn't cost-effective for smaller businesses with only 100-200 users. Fortunately, UiPath has introduced a new approach, allowing us to purchase orchestrator instances tailored to specific user base needs. This, combined with the inherent benefits of a cloud-based platform, has made the cloud a much more attractive option compared to 2019. In conclusion, cloud computing is now a critical factor in the RPA landscape, and the adoption of cloud-based solutions has become significantly easier. This shift has opened up new opportunities for businesses of all sizes to leverage the benefits of RPA technology.

We started with five or six people trained online by UiPath and the different certification programs available in the UiPath Academy courses were helpful.

UiPath has helped to drastically reduce human error to almost zero by automating all the structured data that used to be done manually by people. This has improved the quality of work for our clients.

UiPath has helped free up employee time. Previously, we analyzed each potential use case to determine its priority. Before committing to a specific case, we built a business case to assess its potential benefits. This involved analyzing how much time automation could save, the associated cost savings, and the number of transactions it could automate. We performed this analysis during the design and assessment phases of our workflow. Following this process, we would gather the data and present it to management for approval before moving forward with automation. The amount of time saved depends on the individual use cases but they are significant. What used to take hours now takes seconds.

UiPath has delivered cost savings for our clients' organizations, not through mere implementation, but through thorough assessment. We start by demonstrating the technology's value through small-scale projects, then scale up. At this point, we gather a list of potential use cases, identify the number of users who could benefit, and pinpoint the manual tasks ripe for automation. Only then, with a business case in hand, do we proceed with full implementation. This careful approach ensures that when use cases are deployed, they translate into meaningful time savings and reduced manual workload. As a result, our clients typically see cost savings in staff reductions of at least 30 percent.

UiPath is an efficient and user-friendly tool. It allows us to record and capture actions, which it then translates into underlying code. This makes development incredibly fast. The centralized orchestration feature is also a major advantage.

Clients are often convinced by its features and marketing. In some cases, when competing with Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere, UiPath has won out due to its faster time to market. This was especially true during the early days of RPA when clients were still experimenting and wanted to try multiple vendors. UiPath's flexibility and strong support, both during evaluation and implementation, were also key factors in its success.

We sometimes use the AI functionality mainly for document scanning but at the time it was poor and had room for improvement.

The operation costs have room for improvement. 

I have been using UiPath for over four years.

UiPath is a stable solution.

We haven't encountered any scaling issues, and UiPath is theoretically scalable for up to 10,000 bots. We've successfully implemented over 100 use cases for a large client with multiple subsidiaries, receiving no complaints.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and UiPath worked with us for every deployment.

We implemented UiPath for our clients in-house.

We evaluated Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere are not as user-friendly as UiPath and they don't have the same user community.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten.

Previously, we distinguished between Automation Anywhere and UiPath based on their bundled offerings. Automation Anywhere included category two AI capabilities with their RPA solution, while UiPath focused solely on RPA and didn't have much presence in the AI space at the time. Although UiPath could integrate with other AI vendors, this wasn't a significant interest for our clients.

Most deployments we completed for our clients were central.

UiPath provides a platform for building, managing, scheduling, and monitoring automated processes. We use it for various processes, such as cost analysis, repairing permissions, and manipulating Excel data. 

UiPath enables us to build end-to-end automations, improving efficiency, enhancing customer service, and creating a human focus. The solution helps us reduce human error. UiPath saves us time because it's flexible and makes deploying processes easy. 

It's easy to build automations in UiPath. It has a simple drag-and-drop interface.

UiPath has an active user community covering a variety of applications and use cases. The forum acts as a central hub for community members to ask questions, share knowledge, and seek help with different issues.  

UiPath has added more artificial intelligence to the full version of the product. There are many options for developers to integrate AI capabilities like natural language processing and optical character recognition.

UiPath should expand its coding options and reduce its dependency on third-party resources. There should also be more flexible licenses for smaller businesses. It's hard for small companies to estimate the cost of adding users in their final budgets. UiPath could also improve error handling and capture a little more information about the execution of your processes. 

I have used UiPath for the last four or five years. 

UiPath is robust and always available. 

I have used Automation Anywhere. The solutions are similar. UiPath has advantages in scheduling and analytics, but Automation Anywhere supports all the LoadRunner requirements. 

Deploying UiPath is straightforward. The installation can take from a few hours to a day, depending on the project. You need to implement the architecture, create a data server, and integrate it with the solution.

I rate UiPath nine out of 10. It helps to learn a little coding in languages like SQL and Python. You should also take time to learn the platform with hands-on experience, instructor-led training, and online resources.  You can start with a foundational UiPath course if you're new to the platform and learn about the fundamentals of RPA processes. Then, you can create a simple automation project to reinforce what you've learned. I also recommend joining the UiPath community and asking questions on the forum. Once you have the basics down, you can try some of the more advanced programs on UiPath Academy.   

I automated the use cases related to medical processes such as posting the payments, downloading the files from the portal, and claiming medicals.

It is easy to create automation, and it is also easy to test for your test case. If you want to go live with a process, that is easy. You can publish the package from UiPath Studio, and in Orchestrator, you can see if the bot is working fine or not in the unattended mode. If the bot is not working fine and continuously throwing an error, you can stop it from your side. You do not have to log in and stop the bot manually.

One of the projects where UiPath has been beneficial is related to payment posting. It is a weekly process that we run on Friday or Saturday. There are about 1,500 records. Before automating it, we could handle 150 to 200 records per day. It took about 20 days to develop the bot, and the testing took two to three hours. After ensuring everything is fine and publishing it, in 10 hours, we are able to post all the records we have. It takes 15 seconds to post one record. We have developed this automation for one client who has multiple clients. We created a master config for that and changed the credentials and the input file. This way the bot processes one client and posts everything, and then the second client and posts everything. It will continuously run every day.

We also used Computer Vision automation for one of the projects, and we also have automation that gets triggered based on a real-time event. For example, on receiving a client email, the bot runs and does the required task.

As compared to other tools, UiPath is more specific. If you need to develop something specific and publish it, UiPath is very helpful for that.

Another valuable feature of UiPath is the training. Those who do not have a programming background and want to understand how UiPath works can go to the UiPath portal to get free training. They can train themselves as a business analyst, a developer, or an automation developer. The training system is good.

The development and practical aspects are also good. When you get a project and you start working with UiPath, you need to buy all the licenses, but you can also develop some processes without buying a license for demo or testing purposes. You can show it to your manager without buying the license.

In advanced features, there is a feature called Document Understanding, which is helpful for scraping the required data from a PDF.

UiPath Academy is very simple. You do not need any guidance on how to use it. After you log in, you get training based on your role, such as whether you are a developer, solution architect, analyst, or delivery manager. You go to the training section accordingly, which not only has text or PDF but also some videos and practical scenarios. They provide some dummy files as well that you can implement in your system. You can use them to see if it is working or not.

The UiPath forum or community is also there. If you have some questions, people will help you with that. Someone will definitely reply to you, and you will get a solution.

Some kind of code repository would be good. Other than that, everything is fine in UiPath. They improve it every quarter and bring something new.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is a stable product. In the last year, I have not found any kind of issue or server error. I did not have any issues where the server was down, so you can rely on UiPath.

It is scalable. UiPath provides all kinds of solutions. Based on that, you need to build your project and diagram. You can then start the job immediately.

We are in the healthcare business. My client has about 5,000 members, but over the past year, we have deployed about 25 processes along with 30 payment posting processes. We have five developers.

You can buy licenses depending on the number of bots that you have. If you have 10 bots, you do not have to buy 10 licenses. You can buy one license and insert that one license to run the bots one by one. You can buy as many licenses based on your convenience.

When you have a licensed version, you can raise a ticket in case you have any issues. They usually respond within 24 hours, but they can also take two to three days.

We were facing an issue with the Computer Vision process for 20 days, and we were not able to find a solution. We raised a ticket with UiPath. They connected with me in two or three days. They monitored all the things and recommended the changes. After making the changes, everything worked fine.

I would rate them an eight out of ten because they should give an immediate resolution for any production-related issues. They should have connected immediately after we created the ticket, but they connected after two to three days, so we lost the money for two to three days.

Positive

I have only used two or three RPA tools. As compared to Power Automate and Blue Prism, UiPath is the best. The cost of Power Automate is a little bit low in comparison to UiPath, but Power Automate does not have flexibility. If you have a large project, go with your UiPath, and if you have a small project, you can go with Power Automate.

UiPath is also good when you have use cases where you need to save your portal credentials or FTP credentials. You can easily use the features of UiPath Orchestrator for that, whereas, with Power Automate, there is no way to save your credentials. You need to save them somewhere else, such as in a text file or an Excel file, which is not secure because if someone opens the file, they can see the credentials. In the case of UiPath, they can see only the username, not the password. This kind of protection is there.

UiPath provides two options: One is a cloud-based Orchestrator and the other one is an on-premises Orchestrator. For safety purposes, most of the companies are not using the cloud-based Orchestrator. They are using the on-premises Orchestrator, but you need to set up your database and connect it with Orchestrator. This way, all the things that you have done at the project level are stored in your database. UiPath does not take any responsibility for that. If you do not have a database and you want to run a process smoothly, you can go for the cloud one.

My current project is on the cloud because they did not want to install their own database and set up all the things. It was better to use the cloud option because they did not need to install anything on the system.

The deployment probably takes one to three days. When you buy your license and connect with them, they will guide you on how to set up things. It is easy for me because I have been using it for the last three years.

We calculate ROI every month end to see how much we have saved. For example, if we have a bot for downloading four files, we do not need to redevelop it for another client. With a few modifications, we can use the same bot, which saves money.

In comparison to Power Automate, UiPath's price is a little bit high. 

The Community edition of UiPath Studio is free. If you want to learn something or develop a process, you can install the Community edition of UiPath Studio. If you buy a license for UiPath Studio, the updates do not happen automatically, whereas, in the Community edition of UiPath, all the things are updated automatically. Once you log in yourself, after every four months or five months, when there is an update, it will automatically update itself, but if you buy the licensed version, it will not update immediately. It will not impact your project.

It is better to use automation. Nowadays, every company is adopting automation. I would recommend choosing an RPA tool based on your requirements. I have not used Blue Prism or Automation Anywhere much, so I cannot compare it with them. However, UiPath is better than Power Automate. Based on my discussions with other people who use other RPA solutions, it seems UiPath is the best. With separate components such as UiPath Studio and UiPath Orchestrator, you do not mix up things, so you can clearly do your job.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten because I have not had any disappointment from using UiPath Studio and UiPath Orchestrator. None of the jobs that I have built so far have failed.