UiPath Reviews

I am a developer, and I use UiPath to extract PDFs for invoices and logistics in the banking industry. 

UiPath can be deployed either on-premises or in the cloud, depending on the customer's requirements.

There are times when the logic is difficult, but the majority of the time, it is easy to build automation using UiPath.

UiPath enables us to implement end-to-end automation, which is essential for our customers. We gather all the requirements from the customer, analyze their feasibility, and proceed to the development phase where we build bots according to the customer's needs. After that, we move on to User Acceptance Testing to ensure the bots meet expectations. Finally, we deploy the automation into production.

UiPath aids in enhancing organizations by cutting down costs and saving time. Without UiPath, a task like collecting and uploading information that typically takes humans around 40 minutes can be completed by the UiPath bot in just ten minutes.

Our customers primarily use UiPath for cost savings.

In addition to saving time, UiPath also eliminates human errors by consistently processing 100 percent of the tasks each time without requiring any human intervention.

UiPath helps reduce our customer's on-premises footprint.

UiPath Academy is excellent for learning about the solution's capabilities and how it works, especially in the beginning. It provides end-to-end courses and certifications for both beginners and advanced users.

UiPath accelerates digital transformation and reduces costs by eliminating the human element. However, this transformation does require IT application support for configurations and security.

UiPath's most valuable feature is its ability to view and extract any data throughout the entire development process in the automation framework.

The document understanding has room for improvement. 

I have been using UiPath for three years.

UiPath is extremely stable and that is why customers ask for the solution.

I rate UiPath's scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I previously used Microsoft Power Automate. When comparing it with UiPath, one significant difference is that we can use UiPath on a local machine to easily build a process, upload it, and create schedules effortlessly. Microsoft has an advantage in the cloud, but it is not as effective on-premises.

The number of people required for each deployment depends on the complexity of each project. For more complex projects, two to three people are required, and it can take up to three weeks to complete.

Our customers experience a return on investment when using UiPath, owing to the time saved in performing tasks and the improved accuracy compared to manual efforts.

We can start to see value after one month of using UiPath.

There are two versions of UiPath; the first is the free community version, which is limited, and the second is the premium version which requires payment but is recommended for large-scale productions.

UiPath's cost is acceptable.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten. UiPath is reliable and accurate.

The maintenance is easy. We only need one person to monitor and maintain UiPath.

I recommend trying the free community version first to ensure that it meets the organization's requirements and then consider upgrading to the premium version in order to handle larger projects.

We use it to automate output from PDFs.

It reduces human time and human error compared to manual processes. It helps a lot in improving business productivity, project productivity, and scalability. It also saves us money.

UiPath is easy to use without any training. Anyone can use it. There is also great customer support. And if you want to learn new things or enhance your skills, you can choose the UiPath Academy training courses.

It is very secure and cheaper and faster.

It needs improvement in terms of optimization. Sometimes the tools slow down when you are working on a huge data set or if the internet connectivity is slow in your area. Otherwise, it works as well as the other tools that are available in the market.

I have been using UiPath for the last three years.

I give the stability a 10 out of 10. It is very stable compared to other solutions.

The scalability is also good, a 10 out of 10.

I have deployed it across different departments and different locations, per the requirements of the various projects I have worked on.

I would give a 10 out of 10 to customer support. If you have any queries you can post them to the community. Last year I was facing some issues related to some processes and I posted queries on the community. I got a response after some time. That was very good for me.

Before UiPath, I tried a related Microsoft tool. 

I did one deployment with the team, but I'm not privy to how deployment works from scratch. But the deployment is of medium difficulty, not very straightforward and not very easy.

I have used UiPath in different types of deployments, depending on the project. Sometimes it's on a private cloud. For example, if it is a project related to deployment on the client side or server, we use the cloud services. If we want to test something on a website or another cloud, then we use the SaaS.

The solution does require some maintenance. The number of people needed depends on the project's size and complexity.

It gives a great ROI. It gives around 25 to 30 percent return. It works well.

The pricing is moderate. It's not that cheap and not very expensive. Every organization can buy or renew a license.

I have used Microsoft Power Automate. I chose UiPath because it is cheaper and has great customer support. There is a huge community of developers, more than for Microsoft Power Automate.

If we're working on a project related to website automation, it requires a minimum of five to 10 people. And if we're working on a small project, there might be a single person or maybe two who work on it. The responsibilities relate to developing, testing, and hosting.

If an engineer wants to learn more about RPA, they should consider this tool first. I always recommend UiPath if you are working as an individual. If you invest X, it will give you 100X.

I use this solution to automate business processes that are rule-based. This includes the automation of different applications and background processes, such as posting invoices.

UiPath makes it very easy to develop automations. The interface is user-friendly and makes it easy to perform operations or use services, whether it is a database or another product. We can perform tasks on Microsoft Azure, for example. Many operations can be completed using inbuilt packages.

For whatever activity we want to perform, it only involves using the drag-and-drop capability, so it is easy to do. Anybody can do it. No programming-specific knowledge, like .NET, is required.

It is easy to develop custom components, which makes life easier.

UiPath allows us to implement end-to-end automation starting with the process analysis and ending with the monitoring. This is important to us because for any new process that we identify, using the task capture methods helps us to gather the documents that are required to automate it. After we develop the automation in Studio, we can easily monitor it using Orchestrator. It is helpful to have a complete solution from start to end, with all of the features that it has.

Using automation means that we increase our process output with minimal effort, which is something that every company wants to do because there is a saving in terms of manpower. It is definitely helpful in our organization.

The amount of time or cost savings depends on the process. For example, some processes that take four or five people to complete can be done using a single bot. Also, people can only work six or seven hours a day, whereas, with automation, the bot can run 24 hours a day. Not only is the process done more quickly but at less cost.

Attended automation has helped to scale RPA benefits because we have some scenarios where human collaboration is required. These are business-critical processes, so any level of automation is important for us.

In addition to savings in time and cost, UiPath further saves us money because of the reduction in human error. When a human is performing a task, mistakes happen. When the bots are used, there are no errors and when the number of mistakes is reduced, the business has more income.

UiPath has helped to speed up digital transformation, although hosting it requires IT support. For example, if UiPath needs to be updated or our infrastructure needs to be expanded, then it requires the help of IT support.

One of the things that I like is that they keep adding new features, such as machine learning models. For example, if you are reading a PDF copy of an invoice then the RPA should be able to identify and understand it. Rather than using rules to identify different formats for different kinds of invoices, machine learning and AI should be involved.

We are using the AI functionality and it gives us the ability to have more automation, saving more time and manual effort, and at less cost. This is possible because UiPath provides pre-built and pre-trained AI models that we can import, depending on the use case.

Some of the processes we have implemented are very complex, and these are the ones that we need AI for. Some of them involve human interaction and cover use cases such as taking different formats of invoices and pushing them to SAP. We have had good success when working with the machine learning capabilities.

The Action Center and Task Manager are very good for business users. The features are helpful because these days, business users are expecting more than a simple rule-based operation in RPA systems.

UiPath Studio integrates well with third-party tools such as Git. It is easy to maintain code from within Studio.

Many of the features that UiPath has are good, although better documentation is required for them.

I have been using UiPath for three years.

I have had issues with previous versions but the latest updates have resolved my problems. As of now, the stability is very good.

Scalability is very good in UiPath.

We have five UiPath users in our project; one is a lead, another is a manager, there are two developers and a consultant. At this point, I'm not sure if we plan to increase our usage.

I have been in contact with technical support in the past, and I would rate them a ten out of ten. They respond very nicely and help to resolve our problems.

When we deploy processes, it takes about half an hour. It varies depending on the process but half an hour is the average per activity.

UiPath is easy to maintain and support. We have a support team and QA teams, and they are responsible for monitoring the processes and the bots. They will check the activities that take place in production.

The number of staff required for maintenance depends on the architecture that the client has.

The licensing model is very good.

We chose UiPath because it is more flexible and has better licensing terms than some competing products.

We use some third-party tools in conjunction with UiPath. For example, to maintain the code and for versioning control, we use Git. We have two or three years of experience with Git and not only is it compatible with UiPath, but it is also easy to use.

My advice for anybody who is implementing UiPath is to start with the documentation. There is a lot of good documentation that includes best practices and plenty of examples. Using the documentation, one can easily learn UiPath.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is the automation of many reports, dashboards, and tables that were created manually by some of my colleagues. The tasks involve collecting information from SAP Solution Manager, manipulating some of the data based on business rules that have been implemented, and then storing the data in a specific way that can be used in the next part of the workflow. This includes using Excel and the aim is to create a PDF report that is sent to the top business line managers.

UiPath is the perfect tool to implement a solution like this, with continuous operative tasks between Microsoft native applications such as Excel, Outlook, and PowerPoint.

Before our UiPath implementation, the organization spent approximately two junior FTE on these tasks, and another 0.2 senior-level FTE in order to guide junior resources.

This process runs every day and if these tasks are executed manually, it means that two resources need to be staffed forever. At the end of the project, the organization gained a boost of two FTE saved and released, able to move on to other projects. This produced real value for the organization.

The efficiency of the process was the key success factor.

UiPath has the simplest low-code user interface that I've seen in my professional life. You simply drag and drop the activity on the flow, in a clear way, with clear names, and manipulating clear variables/arguments based on parameters. These are the key points in my humble opinion.

The library creation platform is really simple to use. Basically, it works like a normal flowchart application and once you've published packages, you can use and re-use these packages like activities in another workflow.

Last but not least, official Microsoft office integration is really useful, although all of the official integrations are very easy to use.

The UiPath Connect! and UiPath Go! communities come to our support every time we need to implement something challenging.

There are features that could be implemented on the coding side; for example, automatically assigning a unique ID for the "activity" used during the flow. As of now, if you use an activity via simple drag and drop, the activity keeps the original name. If you don't change the name of the activity manually then you will lose some information during logging. It would be useful to put a simple incremental ID on each activity, so even if you don't change the activity name, you will know where the process becomes stuck.

During the last update, the connection between robots and the Orchestrator (cloud) changed a lot. It would be a good idea to provide an easy way to use a single type of robot, regardless if it is a standard robot, floating robot, connected user, etc. Basically, have a simpler way to deploy robots in development, testing, and production environments.

I have been working with UiPath since 2017, and I plan to continue.

This product is really stable, and this is true for the on-premises deployment as well as the cloud version.

This solution is really scalable. It can be used in other organizational departments or on other robots in order to boost your automated tasks.

The vendor provides really good support; fast response time and great quality!

UiPath was my first RPA solution.

During the initial setup, care should be taken when configuring the robot connection. If you choose the "modern folder" setup then you could be struggling.

I am part of the vendor team, implementing RPA for other clients.

We have a 300% return on investment.

The price and setup costs need to be supported by a strong business case.

We evaluated Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere, WorkFusion, and Selenium (for web automation).

We use Studio, the Orchestrator, and we have attended and unattended robots.

Our primary use case is automating back-office processes from the corporate side. One example is the automation for ticket closure for some of the customer complaints. We also use it to fill information gaps between systems. Instead of having information run through standard APIs, we have it copied over from one system to another.

We run automations in a virtual environment, and the implementation was pretty easy and quick.

We used the Community Edition before purchasing our license. From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one week. We found it to be very easy and very fast. We, as a Contact Center, usually face a lot of problems when we suggest any requirements. When we started with RPA, it took approximately one month for a very complex process to be automated.

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 five. It is very easy. You can use the UI, or you can use APIs for the connection. In the end, you can do it.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five, for sure. In two or three weeks, an RPA developer can do everything.

In the Contact Center, the key issue is the handling time. RPA has helped us to decrease our time, and eventually, it will help to decrease the headcount.

For one of our processes, it reduced the time it takes from five minutes to somewhere between forty and fifty seconds. That saves a lot of time.

In terms of eliminating human errors, there has not been much difference because we have very strict processes and strict steps for them, so human error was minimal, to begin with. Our success is in the reduction of time to complete them.

The unattended, back-office robots are the most beneficial feature.

The Form Builder for back-end robots needs to be a web portal instead of a full desktop application. 

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution between three and four. For exception handling, it means that a senior RPA developer has to understand the reasons behind the process. If they have not been exposed to it then it is easier to perform some simple fixes and continue the process.

We have implemented eighteen processes so far, they are they used in several departments. In total, we have approximately four thousand people who are using this solution.

From a scalability point of view, we're not that confident that we can have the robots running twenty-four hours a day with a huge transaction. Being a telecom operator, we have a lot of transactions and the stability of the unattended robots needs some enhancement.

I think that both customer support and technical support are very good. When we have any questions or any issues, we are connected immediately. 

We did not use another RPA solution prior to this one.

We learned about RPA because one of the contractors was working on an RPA PoC at our company, and we were convinced that it could help us a lot. The IT people were invited to see the technology and from there, they decided to implement it with our in-house IT group.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. We used the Community Edition and it is very easy to use. 

We performed the implementation on our own.

We realized ROI in approximately six months. Our cost savings come from savings in agents.

From a cost perspective, unattended robots are better. They run twenty-four hours a day and do not require running on a client machine. The attended robots are not as cost-effective.

We did evaluate one other RPA solution before choosing this one. Our main reasons for choosing UiPath were the price and the ease of development. The Community Edition is very useful, and we are easily able to find RPA developers working in UiPath. This is different than with some of the competing products.

My advice for anybody researching this solution is that it is easy to download and it has a big community. A PoC can be done easily, and you can decide from there whether this solution is suitable.

This is a good solution, but the stability of the unattended robots needs to be improved.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I have used UiPath Orchestrator, and we have created both attended and unattended robots for our clients.

We have been using the new AI and OCR technologies with UiPath, and we are currently trying to implement the Citrix log capability that was recently introduced.

We are not running our automations in a virtual environment. When we automate any Citrix-based application, it's all email-based. There is a Citrix receiver and we communicate with that, which helps automate Citrix applications much faster.

Most of the clients I had seen have been running in virtual environments, although I have seen some of our clients running on the desktop. We have also seen hybrid scenarios.

One thing is that virtual environments can be standardized pretty quickly. So, that's an advantage. Normally, the companies, which are leaning towards more cloud now, will be happy with this. So, I think that is one factor. As you move virtual machines to the cloud you can migrate your bots to the cloud faster.

I have worked on various different domains including the public sector, commercial, healthcare, energy, utility, and federal. These are the different customers for which we are implementing solutions. Now, the customers are moving towards AI and natural language processing. They are more into chatbots, how they can use artificial intelligence, making use of data science, and putting more machine learning on board.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it two and a half. I'd say it is about marketing. You can develop anything. There are very small processes that you can develop with having minimal experience. However, when you start implementing complex processes, I would say you need to be a background developer.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. All of my team members have been using UiPath Academy for training and certification. It's not just with the U.S., but outside the U.S. as well.

From the point that a UiPath license is purchased until the first robot is ready totally depends upon what use case we are implementing. There are different methodologies that people use. Some build the bot without exceptions and it can go to production. Like a very simple process can go to production in two to three weeks. A more complex bot will take eight to ten weeks, and depending upon the process, it can go longer. I have seen tasks when a human is performing the job and it takes him around twenty minutes per transaction. But, when the bot comes in, it actually completed that same transaction in five minutes. But, to develop that five minutes of processing, it was understanding system availability and testing. Then you have to do load testing. It takes ten weeks or so.

Our clients decide to implement RPA for several reasons. The first reason, of course, is to have work completed faster. Second, when there is a workload, you can work on it more efficiently and with fewer people. Consider an open enrollment in October, where the open enrollment starts at 10:00 AM and there are a lot of transactions flowing in. Now you have to hire a human and train them. With the bot, we can just scale up instead. Finally, the bots are errorless.

In terms of eliminating human errors, it is a one hundred percent reduction. When you implement bots, it's error-free, as long as you have implemented it properly. The robot does not get tired, so the error rate is actually zero.

I would say, more important than saving money, it's more about business growth and client satisfaction. Our clients all serve someone, so it's more about customer satisfaction. The employees benefit because sometimes they have to do repetitive jobs, and they get bored with them. So, they can use automation and apply their brains somewhere fruitful.

Overall, automation is always improving customer satisfaction. Response time is improved, errors are reduced, and productivity increases because work is being done around the clock.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is user-friendly. I was a coding developer, so I know how to write code, and I've also used other RPA tools. This solution is workflow-driven, where you can easily relay what you had written. If someone has to read the code, it is very readable.

Second, I've always been a Microsoft technology guy, and they have provided the facility where we can implement any of the C# code into it. We have .NET code, and that's why I like it. We say it's a tool, but I would say it can also be leveraged as a custom coding tool. We can actually do whatever custom code you want.

I would like to see more machine learning features and capabilities for more accurate OCR.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It's stable. The thing is, with the software, we have a few glitches here and there, but what I like is that we have the right support. When we actually reach out to verify, we get a faster response and also a faster solution. The responses are effective and fast.

The responses are effective and fast.

I have seen some cases where there is backend automation, but it was a series of processes. With this solution, they combine all of it into one. There were few human-interactive automations. Rather, it was batch-job processing of databases, etc.

The complexity of the initial setup depends upon the client.

There is admin access and a whole lot involved. There are safety concerns from client to client with their security policies, and it may take time. I have hardly seen any clients where it's easy to set up, within a week or two. It takes longer because of the client's own security policies. You have to get a lot of clearance because there is a lot of admin access that UiPath needs. If I had to rate the setup, I would give it three out of five.

A dedicated person is required to maintain this solution. The same way humans get sick and need doctors, the bots get sick and you need a maintenance person.

I would estimate that our clients see ROI, on average, in one year. It depends on what they are trying to save. If it is FTE then eventually you'll be getting everything. If you are trying to have a faster experience, it totally depends. There is a development cost and a tool cost that have to be considered. It also depends on the complexity of the processes and how long they take to code.

We have clients who use almost all of the RPA solutions. The most common ones are Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and WorkFusion. We don't recommend. We advise. We can implement regardless of the solution.

The choice is dependent on various factors. What we have seen is that most companies have a technology stack. Some have a Java shop, while others have a Microsoft shop, or others will use a different technology stack again. People tend to choose what best matches their technology.

When we started initially, most of the business users were afraid that the bot was going to take their job. That is not the case. The bot is actually helping them with their substantive, day-to-day work, by handing the repetitive work. So, after seeing the benefits, I've seen a lot of users now leaning towards bots, and they are very happy with RPA.

I am looking forward to the new version where they have implemented libraries. One thing they have done is merged the media packages into one. 

From a cost perspective, there is a difference between attended and unattended bots. I have implemented both, but most of the plans are moving towards unattended. The unattended bots come at a higher cost. For an attended bot, it is being used while the user is at the machine, and is more like an interactive bot. While there is a huge difference in cost, I still prefer unattended bots. I see less benefit in using attended bots and say that I would use unattended eighty percent of the time.

When I'm implementing an unattended bot, I am actually putting it on a machine. I can run as many unattended bots as I need on that one machine. I can do this with attended bots, but the thing is, you need user interactions. Now think in this way, if the user is not there, the attended bot is waiting for that user. Secondly, I see some of the use cases that are really helpful and suitable for attended, but I would rather go with unattended because it's going to show that I don't need a physical machine and it will be more efficient.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to start with the UiPath Academy and do the training. Then, look through some videos, implement a process or two and see how comfortable you are. At this point, you can move forward with it. I would say that it is pretty easy to understand.

This is a good solution, but I'm a hardcore custom developer. I still want that flexibility in my hand to do whatever I can do. With a tool, there are always limitations in terms of policy and rules.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the financial processes. 

In our company, we are freeing up 14,000 hours per month.

All of the UiPath's components, meaning Studio, Orchestrator, and Unattended Robotics, are really important for us because they offer really clean processes. The one that generates more value for us is the Orchestrator because we are planning to really scale up the factory. It helps us to have an overview and control. With the insights that they announced recently, I hope we have really great control over it in the company.

In terms of ease of use, I would rate the solution five out of five. It's really intuitive and any people that have the basics of coding can handle it. 

In the next release, they need enterprise connect. That's something we were wondering about. 

The solution could maybe use more artificial intelligence components or stuff we can start to use in the AI field. 

It could use an easy integration with SAP. Most of the processes of our company are in SAP. Sometimes it's kind of tricky to automate it.

I'd rate the stability four out of five. We haven't presented problems but sometimes with the UiPath robot, the robot attended license breaks.

We have reached out to technical support. We are in Columbia so sometimes there are slow responses because they don't have too much capacity to attend to us in Latin America. It could be better.

Our time to market in implementing our first robot was four months because it was new for everyone in the company. We started too many processes at the same time and we were preparing everything around the company. It was slow. It was four or five months.

The initial setup was easy. We didn't have any problems.

We implemented the solution ourselves. Our IT department and our robotics architect handled it. We also had UiPath help us with the set up as well.

I'd rate their assistance five out of five. They helped us a lot.

Unattended robot costs are high.

For our company, we have money to buy the solution and we have a huge contract with UiPath, but for companies that are smaller, the costs are too high. For example, a company that is not too big, because they have to pay in dollars, may suffer because conversion rates are high.

When we started we started with UiPath and Blue Prism. We made 14 processes with each and we decided to stay with UiPath. Mostly because of the IT architecture. We really like the Orchestrator, for example. It was like a huge consideration we had because Blue Prism is like a closed book and we didn't like it too much.

We utilize the full UiPath package. We are all on the cloud using the Microsoft Azure platform. 

We also use it within the virtual environment. It has been tough implementing it. Sometimes it doesn't identify the selectors or the images. It has a higher risk of failure. It's risky to have a centralized process.

We plan on automating the drilling process, the upstream and midstream process of the company, and the transportation of oil and gas for the company. Those are the main areas for us that we are aiming to automate. We started with back processes such as financial processes, logistic processes, and HR processes because they are not the core. As we continue learning about it, we will focus on the back-office processes.

A prerequisite for us in the company is to go through the UiPath RPA Training Academy. They have many courses, including foundations and advanced certifications. I'd rate the Training Academy four out of five. If they didn't explain too many things that would be great. They do basic stuff that will help people have a different mindset about it. They need more of an overview. Use cases, examples and more explanations about the activities in the UiPath would be useful. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using the attended, unattended, and Orchestrator components of this solution.

Our primary use case is developing automation around revenue cycle management in the healthcare space.

We run automations in a virtual environment and we are very happy with that ability. It is much more time-consuming when compared to running it directly on the server, but it is very reliable and it is a great way to create automations that you wouldn't otherwise be able to create. Of course, we prefer to go directly to the same environment.

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. In order for me to give it a five, it would have to be such that a user could go in and develop it easily with a point and a click. I think it would be extremely difficult to build a platform that was that simple for the end-user, but I think UiPath has come a long way and is very good at making it easier and easier as we go along.

We have at least ten developers who have gone through the certification training with the UiPath Academy. On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training four and a half. The training is wonderful. There are certain elements of the training platform that are not keeping up with the product though. Also, some of the things that are in the documentation are not up to date. Being a little outdated, it can be kind of frustrating for the people that are going through it. But, it's a great way for people to get a good understanding of how to use all of the elements of the process.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately three weeks. 

In terms of eliminating human errors, they are one hundred percent gone. When we build the bots we build them right, and there are no more human errors.

With respect to saving time, for the processes that we have built, it saves at least ninety percent of the time that humans were taking. We have to have somebody that monitors the bots. In case they stop, they have to start them up again.

We are a development shop for UiPath, so we use the Studio all day long.

We really like the Orchestrator and how I'm able to see what's going on with all of the different automations.

On the development side, more documentation on how to structure the setup for different environments would be helpful. Our biggest struggle had to do with questions like:

• Do I need to have fifty monitors to run fifty different bots?
• Do I need to have fifty separate computers around fifty different processes at the same time?

There was no really good documentation to teach us how to do that, so there was a bunch of trial and error involved in figuring it out.

We know that we didn't want on-premises computers, but we didn't have any documentation to explain how to set them up in the cloud. We went through several different iterations before we finally got that right.

Ultimately, it took us about three months before we decided on the structure that we wanted, so better documentation on infrastructure would be very helpful.

The product, itself, is generally very stable. On a scale from one to five, I would rate the stability a four. We do have situations where we've run some updates and then ended up with some OCR things breaking on us. But overall, we build automations for our customers and they don't really know that there are any problems whatsoever, because they're generally pretty easy to resolve.

We have approximately twenty people involved in the automation side of the business, but it's growing rapidly.

I have not used technical support other than the online forum.

This was our first RPA implementation.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. It just works. You download it from the cloud and install it on your computer. You might have to update your .NET framework, so make sure that it works. It is very visual and very intuitive, so you're up and running in no time with Studio. With Orchestrator, it takes a little bit of getting used to in terms of matching up Orchestrator with the computers that it's linked to but it took hardly any time for us.

We deployed the solution ourselves.

We have seen benefits, but I would say that it took us longer than most because initially, we were building through an RDP connection. We were also connecting to a software platform that is inherently slow. Between these two things, it took a lot of extra work to get it running and recognizing all of the images and stuff like that.

I can say for sure that we've seen savings on efficiency and labor for performing the tasks that we've automated. As a result of that, we've invested a lot more in training developers and building their skills. We're cash negative on the deal, but it's because we believe in the product. For the processes that we are actually doing, we are seeing savings right away, which is why we're investing more in UiPath.

For people who are researching this type of solution, I would suggest that they test all of them out. All of them give you an opportunity to try them. We initially made our decision to go with UiPath after looking at Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. One of the primary factors that drove us to UiPath was developer feedback. Asking developers what platform they would choose to develop on, all of them said UiPath because it's very flexible and very intuitive. A lot of people are familiar with the .NET framework, so it's easy.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to first speak with people who have already deployed it in a similar type of target environment. Once you know how to set it up, it's easy. It depends on the infrastructure that you want, or need, for your organization. Otherwise, it's just going to be a bunch of trial and error.

From a cost perspective, the unattended bots are obviously much cheaper than the attended bots. However, to build a bot to automate a process where an unattended bot can run it is also more costly for the end-user. For us, it makes more sense to have attended bots. We also have access to a very low-cost labor pool. Because of that, it's cheaper for me to just have somebody monitoring the bots, running them manually.

Overall, this solution is awesome. I'm very excited about all of the new things. We've been doing automations for about eighteen months, and with the product from that time, to where we are today, many new things have come in. I mentioned the problems that we had with the RDP connection but Computer Vision comes out, and it makes things much easier and much more reliable. Fortunately, all those have now switched over to running directly on the servers where we're running the software, so the need for us has gone way. At the same time, I have used Computer Vision and it's great.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.