UiPath Reviews

We primarily use the Studio, which is for developing the robots, and we deploy to Orchestrator.

We went through a large SAP transformation and we had a lot of issues getting the users to accept the new systems. They were issues related to the adoption of new systems. We decided to build these attended bots in order to guide the users through the system. Essentially, it is navigation or guidance assistance. By helping the users with proper data entry and design, flowing in a logical sequence that is easy for the user to follow, it minimizes end-user training.

Running our automations in a virtual environment is something that we had tried during our PoC. Currently, we have attended bots deployed in more than twenty thousand laptops, and eventually, we're planning to have more than eighty thousand deployments. Because of the large scale, initially, we were having a lot of challenges because of things that go on with the users' machines. We wanted to explore Citrix because there is just one virtual environment that every user logs on to, and then run the processes from there. Unfortunately, it did not work for us. We were seeing a lot of issues and felt that it was much more stable deploying individually to each laptop, instead of using Citrix.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a four. There is always room for improvement.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. The material is very sequential and logical. You don't get lost because you just follow the modules from beginner to intermediate to advanced. You cover everything from end-to-end, and it is very structured.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one year. This included our pilot project, then the development and the UAT. When we went live in production there were three thousand users. 

This solution saves our users time. For example, on a standard SAP system where a user has no training, and you tell them to go and finish performing a transaction, it will take them between thirty and forty minutes. Now, with these attended bots, it is almost reduced to half. They can finish the same transaction with minimum training in probably fifteen minutes.

This solution has definitely reduced human errors. We have cleaned up the transaction screens and we help the user to focus on what is needed. We give them the right instructions to make sure that they enter the right information.

This solution is mainly used for navigation, position making, and reducing errors. It means that we have a quicker time to finish any transaction. We are a financial organization, so obviously, for us, it's important to record every sale that we make and every client that we have. It has significantly helped our client servers to reduce the time that they spend on these systems to finish a particular transaction.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of using it. This includes the way the activities are set up, and how easy it is to solve problems by searching with Google if we're stuck.

We did not have to do a lot of customization because the standard UiPath activities fit our needs. This is a big point for us because we end up customizing most of the products that we use just to satisfy our own business needs. In the case of Studio, we didn't have to create a lot of custom activities.

I find it difficult to set up the Orchestrator and it should be more user-friendly for non-technical people. I understand how we create packages and push them, but I find the maintenance hard to follow. As it is now, I have to contact our IT department, which takes two to three days. In the meantime, we just have to wait.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a four. In terms of attended automation, we did have a lot of issues. We have requested lots of product enhancements, which then came through the pipeline. Initially, we did see a lot of issues and they had to make some changes to cater to our needs. Also, we have some more requests that have been put in the pipeline to make it a bit easier for us.

We have about twenty people working with RPA in our organization. At this time we have automations running on more than twenty thousand laptops.

The technical support for this solution is very good. They're very responsive.

We have had people working on-site at UiPath too, and they have been hands-on trying to see what we are solving. They have given us very good and very relevant suggestions, which has been helpful for us. 

We did not use another RPA prior to this solution.

We knew that we needed to invest in this solution based on user feedback. When we launched our new SAP system, everybody kept complaining about how difficult it was to use. There is a lot of training involved, but it's not like you can remember the training. We replaced fourteen hundred systems and put them into a single instance, so even if you are trained for weeks it is hard to remember all of it.

Basically, we needed something that was easier and helps us navigate through the systems so that we can complete our transactions. This solution does just that. It guides the user, waits for the user to give the right input based on what is expected, and then takes the user to the next relevant screen so that they can perform the transaction.

The initial setup has been complicated for us. After we went live in production, one of the issues we saw, but didn't realize initially, was that even though the tray was not open, by default though, if the bot is pushed onto a user's machine then it will be connected to the Orchestrator. Even though the user is not running the process, the bot always stayed connected. That was causing a large load on the Orchestrator and we didn't realize it until we started increasing from three thousand to twenty thousand users. That's when we were seeing a lot of timeouts. The production connection kept dropping and we were not able to figure out why. UiPath helped us to restructure the whole SQL database and the way we established the connections.

We have not yet seen ROI, although I think it's too early because we only went live two or three months ago. The big expansion in users was just this week, so it is too early for us to say.

We do know that we have been receiving very positive feedback so far. The users with machines where these bots are deployed have been saying it is very easy to use and there is minimal training required. It's out there, on the desktop or laptop, and they just have to launch by clicking the play button and the process starts. 

When we started this project, we explored Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. I don't think that they were able to give us what we were looking for in terms of attended automation. When we looked at UiPath we found that it could satisfy all of our business requirements, which is why we chose this solution over the others.

I am really excited about the new Studio X. Ours is a consulting firm where not everybody is tech-savvy, but everyone wants to get their hands into automation. UiPath is saying that it is going to be very easy. Even for people without a technical background at all, they will be able to build their own process and bot. I'm looking forward to seeing how our users are going to make use of that within the UI.

This solution is easy to use and adopt in an existing environment. The best part for us is that even though some features were lacking, the turnaround time to have them implemented was amazing. We have always coordinated with our UiPath partner to tell them what it is that we need. When we have requested features, we have found that in the next release they are added. We found this unique among vendors.

My advice to anyone who is researching this type of solution is to definitely go for it. There are a lot of materials out there which will help them make the decision. Our own journey showed that it was easy for us to use, learn, adopt, and finally deploy.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use UiPath Studio, Orchestrator and Robots, all unattended currently. Our primary use case is one-off for mediation projects because we're trying to set up our infrastructure. Once the infrastructure is set up, we plan on creating a federated model throughout our entire organization.

Right now, our remediation teams do a lot of large one-time projects where they have to have policies for scaling up and scaling down the volume of full-time employees. I know we have avoided that situation in at least three cases now where they have not had to hire or remove people because they have been able to automate the remediation process.

The most valuable features for me in Studio can be anything that helps me test or debug. It saves me a lot of time and it saves our QA team a lot of time setting up separate environments, test data, and things like that.

The most valuable thing in Orchestrator is just how easy it is and the fact that it's cloud-based. It is also useful in that it allows non-technical users to get information about their projects. For example, they can find out if independent components are up and functioning; if something is down they can find out what went wrong.

In the next release of the solution, my biggest hope would be getting more accessibility to test data processing information. I was told that this feature was coming already. Being able to see what my variables and my arguments look like when things are being passed and making the processes very clear to my customers when we are doing test cases for UAT (User Acceptance Testing). That would be invaluable. It would help the customer to see and understand the data flow more easily without having to go through training or being very tech-savvy.

I think Studio has a little more room for improvement and could use a few more features. They just announced Studio X and Studio 2 which actually addressed many of the issues I hope to see resolved, but that is assuming that they come through in development and do what they say they are going to do.

On a scale from one to five, where one is not stable and five is very stable, I would rate the stability of the UiPath platform as a four-and-a-half. I've only seen one or two buggy behaviors, so I think that qualifies as extremely stable.

In our organization, there are five full-time people involved in the automation program. We can drag people in from different departments in the business on a case-by-case basis when necessary for resolving issues with automating.

Before we started, all of us were involved in using UiPath Academy RPA training and learning through it. On a scale from one to five where one is the least beneficial and five is the most, the Academy is something I would give a three. I say that because I don't think they went into enough detail. I understand that they didn't because they are trying to save time for non-technical people, but I love knowing everything and I would love to see more detail in their presentations or have options to do so.

Customer support overall is very responsive and they say a lot of helpful things, but I'm often able to find the same information and answers on the forums. It would be nice at times to be able to talk to someone from support over the phone. I can describe my problems without having to send dozens of emails back and forth in order to get an answer. It just isn't terribly efficient.

The decision to automate and the product selection for the solution were completed before I was brought on as part of the team. I was actually brought on as an expert from another company in order to help them stabilize their deployment. The product vendors which were on the short-list actually include some vendors which the company has licenses for in addition to UiPath, like Blue Prism. They are exploring multiple options because we are a global entity. They want to offer the option to entities to choose whatever partner they prefer to go with.

The approach to the initial setup which was selected was a complicated process. I don't know much more than it took a long time, it wasn't very successful and that's why they brought me on.

They did the entire implementation in-house.

We have seen some return on investment to a certain extent, but a lot of it's coming from one-time processes and not from recurring processes. In other words, the ROI is already there, but it is from one-time processes we've deployed. These are processes that we would run a bunch of items through one time and the circumstances are not repeatable the next year or even the next week.

I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but I know that the cost of our department has been saved roughly four times over. Again, a lot of those savings are from one-time events that won't be recurring in the following year so they can't really be seen as predicting the future results.

The solution has helped to eliminate human errors in some cases and that also has value. In addition, there is the benefit of saving the employees time. Right now I believe that we have approximated that we saved somewhere between 40,000 and 45,000 human hours. That resource can be re-allocated.

Part of our deployment is in a virtual environment and part of it is not. The implementation is actually still in progress. We are in the phase of setting up our infrastructure and trying to automate some POCs (Proof of Concepts) and some early successes to show the financial benefits of RPA to the C-suite (C-level executives such as the CEO and CFO).

On a scale from one to five where one is very difficult and five is very easy, I would rate the ease of use of the platform as a four. I think the product is fairly intuitive. Because I come from a tech background though, I feel like it is going to be a little easier for me to understand than some other people who don't have that same background. The only reason I don't give it a five is because the integration between Orchestrator, Robots, and Studio does require a little bit of intimate knowledge to be able to connect them all and make sure that they stay connected.

We have not used attended robots yet, so I'm not sure how cost-effective they are because we don't have any data on that. We use unattended bots and they seem to be effective solutions, but I don't know what they pay for them.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a nine. The only reason I'm not going to give it a ten is that I have struggled with certain errors and stability issues. Whether that is our fault or a general bug in the actual software is yet to be seen. I have a few open tickets, but I've really liked this software overall.

Advice that I would give to a colleague at another company researching this or similar solutions would be that they look at their organization and see if they are really ready for deploying RPA solutions. A lot of RPA solutions are sold with the promise that anyone can build solutions with the products and the bots are going to deploy quickly. I don't think quick deployment is deceiving, but I do think that trying to implement a solution that does move so quickly like this into an organization that doesn't move quickly can create friction.

Our primary use for this product is to automate processes that we are capable of automating at our tier-one level human resources center.

This product has improved the way the organization functions by helping us go through a digital transformation. RPA is able to bridge a lot of the gaps that we had in our processes and processing what we had before we moved to this platform as a solution. With a little effort, I was able to bridge those gaps and automate a lot of processes that were manual and less efficient prior to involving the product.

The most valuable features for us are the recording tools. They allow the capture of user actions on the screen and then the recordings can be converted into workflow sequences. The activities are very simple to use and easy to put together in order to automate the processes. Once we get Orchestrator, that feature will probably be the most valuable, but we are currently not able to put it into production.

As far as additional features, there doesn't seem to be anything outstanding that I can think of right now. Maybe some off-the-shelf "How To" features could be installed with Studio so that you can search for how to do something and pull it up directly in the Academy or on-screen without leaving the product.

There could be room for improvement in the ticketing feature. It's kind of hard to find that feature sometimes.

On a scale from one to five, where one is the least stable and five is the most stable, I would rate the stability of UiPath as a five. It is very stable. We have never had any issues with regards to UiPath. The actual problems seem to be network issues and our environment.

We started out sort of small in the beginning and we've invested more in buying licenses and functionality. The scalability in that way seems very good.

My experience with customer service has been very good. They make a few different types of resources available and it is usually pretty easy to find what you are looking for. For example, I have used the RPA Academy. It is pretty easy and it was very beneficial. I haven't really opted for using customer support or technical support much. I've been able to just call, text, or email somebody and get a solution.

There were really no automated processes when I first came on to work at this organization. When we made the decision to go in this direction, we made a comparison of products to solve the automation issue. What made us choose UiPath to automate our processes was price, availability, ease of use and customer services. They were also willing to be the quickest to work with us as well. It seemed to be the best mix of all these.

We knew we needed to invest in a new solution because, where I'm working, we had 600 or 700 processes that I knew could benefit from automation. As an industry and in total, we probably have thousands of processes that could benefit from and be improved by automation. Coming into the company and seeing how things were done just made it obvious that automation was missing but necessary. Government processes need to be automated to be more efficient because of the volume and the potential for human error.

I would describe our initial setup as complicated because of our industry. We never worked with software like this prior to implementing UiPath. Just to get permissions to use the product on our network was one obstacle. It wasn't always easy to get to ATO (Authority to Operate) and get the capabilities and rights to do certain things on the network like to have the product interact with certain programs that have sensitive information. It's kind of complicated, but that is a whole new path within our industry whenever introducing new technology.

From the time of purchase of the UiPath license until adding our first robot in production was a few months. We purchased a license in February and got a robot into production in May. Most of that time spent was because working on the project is not even my full-time job. I have a whole different responsibility in the organization. So, I was doing a lot of developing in my free time. It probably would have only taken a month or so if I was doing it full time.

We did not use an integrator, reseller or consultant. I did everything in-house.

We have seen a return on investment and performance benefits. The ability to notice a difference was almost immediate for certain things and in certain programs. I know that I've calculated that we saved $1.47 million through the automation we have already set in place. The solution also helped eliminate human errors which are more difficult to approximate as a dollar value or percentage.

Basically, using the product has allowed us to take between four to six full-time employees from doing very mundane transactional processes to doing more value-added work. That shift alone reduces human error because the human mind is not made to do this kind of transactional work over hours and days at a time.

This solution saves our organization time on an ongoing basis. I would say it saves a minute to three minutes per transaction per thousands of transactions. It certainly has value in more than one way.

We license the use of the product on a yearly basis. The licensing we bought costs $7000 in 2019 for what we have in production. That is the cost of the license plus Studio.

From a cost perspective, I believe that unattended robots can save even more time and more money than attended robots. The only reason we haven't gotten unattended processes into production yet is simply that we haven't got the authority to operate Orchestrator on our network server. The cost is not an issue given our budget, we need to be able to justify how secure it is.

The vendors who were on our shortlist were UiPath, Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. All of them seemed to be good solutions.

We are currently running some of our automation in a virtual environment. The implementation performance is all right. Our system environments are pretty out of date and a bit technologically behind. Sometimes that fact will hold things up. I am the only one in the organization involved in the automation program. I'm the only developer and the only person who uses UiPath directly, but it affects thousands or even tens of thousands of people.

On a scale from one to five, one being the most difficult and five being the easiest, I would rate the ease of use of the platform as a five. Personally, I had no developer experience. I never heard of RPAs or UiPath a year ago. I was able to learn it and figure it out using the Academy, YouTube and the forum. Coming to it cold and doing it part-time, that really doesn't seem like a long time.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a ten overall. It has been completely helpful in achieving the goals we set for it and the technical help and customer service I've gotten have been good. Most of the issues we have encountered with the product are because of the way we operate and not because of UiPath. The support from UiPath provided everything we have ever asked for and needed.

The advice I would give to a colleague at another company who is researching this or a similar automation solution is to just do it. It really creates the opportunity to make things more efficient.

The primary use case is around manual conversion of data from one system to another. These are big processes right now.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator and the robots.

Our organization is more efficient. The people that you're automating processes from are happy they are getting done. They are excited and like to be a part of the process. It's also new technology. It's innovative. and people enjoy being around that.

We don't have a baseline metric for the elimination of human errors. So, we don't know how many errors a human actually makes doing some of the conversion data entry processes. We assume they are about 90 percent accurate and UiPath is 100 percent accurate.

We have saved 18,000 hours so far this year.

With the robotics and management of Orchestrator, we are able to kick things off. We are starting to get more out of the scheduling of these and into more on demand triggered events, such as a RESTful service calls and things of that nature.

The ease of using the platform for automating your company's processes is a five out of five. It is super simple. Everyone who we have in our robotics team had no experience with automation or robotics previously. They went online took the classes from UiPath. They started with the Community Edition, just to play with it themselves, then they were probably experts within a couple of months.

Everyone has used the UiPath Academy training. I would rate it around a three or four out of five. While it's simple and you get a decent understanding of what's there, you still have to dedicate on an awful lot of time doing the automations to become proficient at them.

While it looks like it is being addressed, getting the unattended robots to every person's machine in the company and executing on their machines needs improvement.

I would rate the stability as a five out of five. it hasn't gone down yet.

We have a team of four people involved in our automation program.

I have only used the technical support to fix a licensing discrepancy. They were okay.

Everybody said, "We had to do more with less," from the C-suite on down. RPA is the only way that you can do that which seemed viable. So, we tried it out.

We were previously using VM. 

The initial setup is straightforward. With our proof of concept, it took us two to three weeks to develop it, then another week to make it production ready. When we deployed it into production, we had the license. We installed the robot and had it running through Windows Scheduler before we had Orchestrator, and it just worked

We started with a proof of concept, had it running in production, and bought the license that day.

We did have a systems integrator who helped us. Overall, for the initial implementation, I would rate them a five out of five. They came in, and it was great.

We have been able to achieve our ROIs on pretty much every process that we have done. You see it almost initially, as soon as the process starts running. However, until we get the actual feedback of, "Yes, I can tell this is saving us time and effort." It takes about a month for the business unit to really recognize it.

We haven't technically saved money because we haven't gotten rid of anybody, so our CFO will not let us claim money. However, we do calculate time given back. Right now, I believe for this year, we've been given back 18,000 hours so far.

Our licensing costs are around $40,000 a year.

We looked at the big three: Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and UiPath. Then, we chose UiPath because of cost and ease of use. The training was there. It was so quick and easy to pick up.

I would recommend UiPath. It's easy to use and learn. It just works and doesn't break. It's cost-effective.

We run our automations in virtual environments, such as Citrix. Orchestrator sits in VMware along with unattended robots. It kicks everything off behind the scenes. Most processes are set on a time schedule.

We prefer unattended bots. We're moving into that real-time trigger, but still like to run unattended to give some form of user interface for the user to call them.

I would definitely rate it a 10 out of 10 because of what it delivers and allows, along with the benefits. You can also see on their strategy on the roadmap, it's just expanding and getting better.

We use UiPath primarily for our financial operations.

We use this solution in a virtual environment called VMware Horizon. It has allowed us to get started without investing a lot, which was good for us. We need to go to the enterprise solution using Orchestrator as soon as possible. That said, I wouldn't do it differently, because if we were counting on the enterprise environment to get started, we wouldn't have deployed anything in the past year. Because we had this virtual environment, we've been able to deploy 16 bots so far.

We were able to automate a lot of data entry into our financial system. We've automated spreadsheet manipulation in the area of financial management.

We knew that our process was very inefficient, so we had to invest in a solution like UiPath. We hadn't used any other solution before UiPath. Our processes are manual and error-prone and we have mid-level people who are highly skilled who are doing this non-skilled labor, which is a problem for the workforce.

The most value we got from UiPath is the ability to automate manual tasks, reduce labor hours, and shift people to higher value work.

We found the solution easy to use. We wanted to train our staff who were not IT and we were able to do that. People who worked in financial operations were able to learn the software and have successfully developed bots.

We used UiPath Academy RPA training to train 14 people. It was good. I think UiPath needs to do a better job of setting expectations and defining the skill level required. That wasn't very clear to us. We couldn't get a good answer. Therefore, it was trial and error. We were told that people just have to be motivated, but learned that that is not enough.  The trainees need to have some demonstrated technical ability.  We found that some people dropped out because it was too difficult for them. Other people picked it up very well because they had somewhat of a technical background. That would be my message for UiPath, to give better guidance on qualifications in the background needed for training.

One does not need IT coding to learn this, but something within business operations that's somewhat technical. For example, writing Microsoft Excel macros, writing business objects reports, and SQL queries. People who can do those things, they can use UiPath.

I'd like to see the ability to operate in a non-persistent environment. Other than that, I'd like to see more intelligence being built in. We aren't using any intelligence yet, but we'd like to.

It's stable. We haven't really had technical issues.

It's scalable. We're not scalable now because we aren't using the Orchestrator software yet. We have successfully tested Orchestrator and will begin using it for production soon, giving us greater scalability.

We really haven't had to use technical support much. Most of our issues had to do with configuration and the environment, more than the software itself. It's just been one configuration issue related to this software, so far - operation in a non-persistent environment.  I was told there's an enhancement coming, but I don't think we have the enhancement yet.  However, we will not have this issue when we migrate to our enterprise platform with Orchestrator. 

The level of support we received from their technical support was good.

The initial setup was medium complexity. We were using a virtual desktop environment and had to configure it for the software. It took a few months.

We used an integrator to deploy UiPath. Our experience with them was good.

We have definitely seen a return on our investment. It took less than a year to see a positive ROI because we had a very small investment to begin with.

This solution has absolutely helped us to eliminate human errors. Most manual processes have 1% to 3% errors, some much higher. One of our processes has a 25% error rate.  The bots eliminate those errors. 

This solution also saves many hours of manual work. We have measured the number of labor hours automated to be 25,000 hours a year, so far.

We pay $3,000 per license, annually. We're using attended robots, but we will move to unattended as quickly as possible.

We chose UiPath because we simply followed NASA's lead. We wanted to move quickly and we talked to NASA. 

We're driving hard to automate as quickly as possible. Traditional IT is not able to automate all the manual work. A lot of manual work unavoidably accumulates between and around core systems.  RPA needs to be part of IT strategy to automate this residual work.  

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten. The only reason it isn't a ten is because it lacks the ability to work in a non-persistent environment. Effectively when you log in, you have to download the software every time.  However, this is also due to our choices in configuring the environment.  

We automate mostly finance processes, which is our largest area. We also automate some HR and logistic IT processes.

We hear from the process owners that they are very happy with the lead time and data quality, which keeps getting better. 

It is very easy to use, and you still have a lot of possibilities to modify what you are trying to do and achieve. 

We would like more API integrations, especially more API connections to SAP. While this is on the roadmap already, activities and packages with more automated API connections to other software or platforms would really help us.

Documentation-wise, UiPath could get a little better.

The support that we are receiving from UiPath is superb.

We are using the UiPath Academy. We also have our own development standards. When we are recruiting new developers, we first have an introduction of our own that we make. It's mostly to Orchestrator and our environment, then we set them free at the UiPath Academy to do training there. Afterwards, we do some additional training to our standards and best practices. So, part of our training is in the UiPath Academy, and we are using it. We have been very happy with it. It's evolving all the time, which is really good

One place that we struggled was when we were uploading the software. UiPath was helpful with getting started, setting up the server, and installing the robots. All that went pretty smoothly. Every time, when we have upgraded, except for the last time, we have struggled. We did not do it right once. We always had to retry, get some support with it, and the documentation was a little lagging. Therefore, we really struggled with upgrading. It's getting a lot better now, but this has been one place where we have struggled.

Annually, the product saves us 25,000 hours. Everyone is satisfied with that.

We have had our contract with UiPath since November 2016. 

We have had a few presentations from Kapow. They have dynamic licensing, which is something that we would really like to have, so we could scale up at peak hours or peak times of the month. This is when we really need to throw more robots at some processes. To my knowledge, that is not possible with UiPath at the moment. Though we are not considering switching at the moment.

We use UiPath for claims processing, enrollment, and interpreting what's on documents, and then we use the data that's in them for different purposes. I'm sure there are many other use cases. We're still brainstorming and giving our leaders some ideas. Frontline employees also have process improvement ideas.

UiPath has improved efficiency, turnaround time, and accuracy while eliminating repetitive tasks. 

With generative AI, we can take on even more complex tasks. We've seen a return in claims and enrollment, which has freed up time and resources. There are lots of other possibilities. Our frontline people have seen how it can supplement and focus on more important tasks, and business leaders like seeing the resources freed for various reasons. The growth potential is immense, and we're only in the early stages. 

UiPath is a low-code solution that allows us to build automations fairly quickly and see the results promptly.

Overall, UiPath is relatively straightforward, but there are opportunities to simplify activities. Sometimes, I've hit roadblocks while developing RPA jobs and found it difficult to find the answer. I can usually resolve a problem through a support ticket or an online search. 

We have used UiPath for about a year and a half.

I rate UiPath support eight out of 10. UiPath support is good, but sometimes they give generic users. Maybe I need to take the initiative and give a little more information and context

Positive

There has been a return on investment, though I'm unsure of the specific amount. We've already saved time and thousands of dollars.

I rate UiPath eight out of 10.

The solution is to get requirements over to Jira, then we use it to automate some of the processes. We can automate changes and statuses.

The solution is user-friendly and easy to handle. Anyone can understand it pretty quickly.

The robots are helpful. The orchestrator is easy to operate. 

The UI is simple and easy to understand.

It makes automation very easy. There are some use cases where you need a small amount of coding. It's a very low-code way of automating. That means you don't need much knowledge to start building what you need. Overall, it's easy to learn. You can even Google questions and find solutions to your queries. 

We can make end-to-end automation, even though I might now always use it that way.

The user community is very good. On their own website, you can find a lot of great information.Their documentation allows you to understand it pretty well. There are videos as well. They make it easy to understand and follow along. Seeing it visualized makes things much easier. And if you have any errors, there are many people all over the world that may have already dealt with those, so you can get information to help you adjust. 

Since it's low-code, we saw the benefits of using UiPath very quickly.

We've been able to minimize our on-premises footprint. 

I've used the UiPath Academy. I've been certified. There are lots of videos and you can go through and you can complete any number of certificates. 

When you make automation, you can save a lot of time. Using it, you can reduce your manual output. It helps VAs and managers save time.

The automation saves on manual labor.

They already have a good overview of the product and training. I haven't found anything significantly negative about the product. 

The pricing can be a big factor for a lot of users. It could be reduced to help more companies leverage its automation capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for the past five years. 

The stability is good. We haven't gotten any kinds of errors. 

The scalability is good. 

I've never contacted technical support. 

I've used other RPA tools, such as Automation Anywhere. People do need to have a bit more knowledge about AA before using it. 

The deployment is very easy. There are just some steps you need to follow. We were able to deploy it in three to four hours. We had three people handling the deployment process as well as testing and creating automation. 

There is maintenance if you make any changes to processes. For example, if an endpoint changes, the automation will need to be changed. 

Automation Anywhere may be more widely used than UiPath based on pricing. 

We're UiPath end-users. 

They have a feature called communications mining. However, I haven't used it yet. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's a good tool to start with when exploring RPA automation, and there are many free items available on the UiPath Academy website itself. You just need to log in, and you can get certified and start practicing. You can start practicing with creating your own bot. It's a very easy tool, and very user-friendly. With small, low-code capabilities, a non-technical person can learn it; it just requires small amounts of coding.