UiPath Reviews

Primary use case is to find the highest value add processes and automate them to allow people to work on other things, which are of higher value and more strategic.

I currently have a team of about 15 people on my team, as a central team. We are at 35 licenses, so we have about 35 developers across the company.

We are still in the process of maturing to the point where people think about RPA first. We're still running around looking for the processes, teaching and helping people to get there. Our culture shift hasn't happened yet.

The solutions has meet our expectations, even a bit more than that.

• Rapid development: If we can develop something in four weeks, then see value back, that is big for us.
• The quick delivery is good.
• The solution is easy to use.

Managing the infrastructure UiPath is running on is a lot harder than it seems. In the app development world, there's things called Docker containers that sort of help you containerize what your thing is running on, then it is in code. If we could get that, it would go a long way. Otherwise, I will have trouble scaling, because every time I scale, it's another manual setup of the infrastructure. I could automate that too, but the right solution is to have this working in containers, not a bot running around getting rid of pop-ups, and installing and uninstalling Chrome.

Working at an enterprise is harder, because we have security concerns, infrastructure, and governance. So, how do you create these virtual users? Because now someone has to own the credentials, but that's an anonymous user who has access to the credentials, and they have access to systems. All of this stuff is hard.

The stability is not that good yet for whatever reasons. We have a lot of safety critical things that have to be 99.999% availability, so we're struggling a little bit with those. For the non-critical processes, it does a great job.

As a product, UiPath is very scalable. UiPath has to run on some infrastructure, and that infrastructure and security is not scalable yet. I'm not sure what the best practices are to avoid that. 

How do you leverage a scalable infrastructures? Let's say a Windows Server 2016 version, because I know UiPath supports it. However, in an enterprise environment, there are security concerns when I have anonymous users with internet access and interactive logins to a Windows Server. As a matter of fact, my security team says, "No." 

In these areas, there is a lot of opportunity. Because, in reality, this is what is keeping me from scaling. I have the business cases. My business users want it. I have the development talent to do it. My issue is with the infrastructure. 

Their customer support is very responsive. Sometimes it can be hard to communicate, because we are going back and forth in a forum type of environment. After three back-and-forths, it should just be a phone call. 

We put everyone through the UiPath Academy RPA training courses: The foundation and advanced framework. Some people struggle with the questions being asked which aren't on the videos. 

The advanced framework is a difficult course. People take it and they don't get the concepts yet, so it needs to be thought through again. 

We haven't actualized the value. We save people time, but then they're doing something else, and you have to quantify that into the value, which gets really grey and hard to do. As far as a head count reduction, we haven't done any of that.

The performance benefits are good. Everyone is happy. When the thing is working and it's working great, they love it because we are getting value.

There is a lot of focus on new features going forward, integrating more with AI, and that's great.

Get started using the product yesterday. You're already too late.

Currently, we use UiPath in multiple types of use cases and build innovations for our clients to improve their system operations. We don't plan to implement AI in our automations in the near future. We're interested in that market, but it's a long journey, and it's a little advanced for us right now.

UiPath is helping our organization with its environmental, social, and governance automation space. Though it's currently at a beginner stage, it is progressing, and we expect to see improvements. UiPath has helped us free up staff for other projects. We have engaged our employees in working with UiPath through presentations. 

UiPath's integration features are highly valuable to us. We are able to achieve a lot with them.

For the moment, I don't see any explicit areas for improvement. However, having UiPath come up with unique features or advancements would be beneficial.

I have used UiPath for five years.

I don't see any drawbacks because our content is not down over time. We keep it updated consistently.

As our environment has grown, I haven’t encountered any specific issues or limitations.

I rate UiPath support nine out of 10. It's great, but sometimes we see delays. We ask a question, and they have to get back to us later with an answer. Otherwise, I don't see any drawbacks.

Positive

We previously tried out another automation app, but it didn't meet our expectations for handling exceptions and managing complex workflows.

Deploying UiPath was straightforward.

UiPath is the best tool, but the price is challenging from a management perspective. The cost-benefit equation might not work out favorably for some smaller organizations.

I rate UiPath 10 out of 10.

Our primary use case involves the democratization of software through the Sysen Lever and Power User Program. Essentially, we are trying to automate complex processes that can be easily rules-based, eliminating the need for repetitive motions.

UiPath helped relieve some of the burden related to paperwork and regulation, making people happy and excited about new opportunities.

The drag-and-drop features are useful, and having the ability to integrate technical scripting is beneficial. It speeds up development while offering additional flexibility.

Scaling efficiently and supporting people with technical information has been challenging.

We have encountered scalability issues trying to figure out how to make the operations work with different setups. My particular employee group is all remote.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing iMac.

I rate UiPath an eight out of ten.

We use it mostly for the banking and insurance domains. We are a service-based company and the tools we use depend on our clients' requirements.

UiPath provides scalability, quality, and a high level of accuracy. It has definitely reduced human error.

It also helps minimize the on-premises footprint, which is important for our clients' environments.

The most valuable features include

• multi-bot architecture
• UiPath Studio
• Test Manager.

It is easy to build automations with this solution as well. We are able to implement end-to-end automation.

There are also build connectors for Salesforce and SAP. Before the connectors, we could only automate the GUI. Now, it is very easy to integrate on the back end as well.

The UiPath Academy courses are also helpful. When a feature or release comes out, they demonstrate them in the Academy.

And if there are any issues, the UiPath community forum helps us to check whether others are also facing these issues. There are a lot of benefits from that.

For some of the cognitive features we have to learn the integration side. Other than that, everything is fine.

I have been using UiPath for nearly three years.

The LTS version is very stable.

It is also definitely scalable. I would recommend it for any size of company, from small to large. For example, if a small company only needs UiPath Studio, they can have it. They don't need UiPath Orchestrator. They can run things with Studio only. There are a lot of options with UiPath.

Their support is good to have, especially for priority issues. 

One thing that would be helpful is if the support team could quickly help us when we raise a ticket. It takes them at least one or two hours to get back to us. With Automation Anywhere, if there is a Severity 1 issue, their support responds within 15 minutes.

Positive

Setting it up is very easy.

The amount of time it takes depends on the client's security requirements. Some teams have restrictions and documentation on how things should be done. But once everything has been verified, deployment will take one to two hours.

Once it's deployed, it's the validation checks that take some time but it depends upon the project: the supporting files and checking that all the integrations are correctly mapped.

In terms of project deployment, we generally have three people involved. One of them will completely handle monitoring and supporting, as well as the Control Room and any logs or administrative tasks. The other two handle change requests.

As for maintenance, our setup is on-premises and we have an internal team that takes care of situations when the server is down. They will restart it and do patch updates, which they will inform us about.

We are using the Enterprise version. We are exploring using it in the cloud, but some of our banking clients do not accept the cloud because of security issues so we go for on-prem only in those cases.

We are not fully using UiPath's AI functionality but we are doing some PoCs, based on our clients' requirements, to check the feasibility. For that, we are using the Community Edition. As for UiPath speeding up digital transformation, I'm not sure. It depends on the process involved.

Overall, I don't see a need for any additional features. I don't have any difficulty using UiPath.

We did AP automation. We started with AP invoice automation first. Then we did a proof of shipment delivery. That was the second concept. After, we expanded to the inputting of contractor timesheets. We moved to publish the metrics on a dashboard and log in to different databases. Slowly, the demand picked up in the last year.

This solution has reduced manual effort on our part. It's removed repetitive tasks which do not bring any value to the company. They have now been eliminated. It's saved maybe 1,000 man-hours every year on the AP side, and maybe on the metric side for a dashboard that we created, we saved 90 hours a month.

The capacity to read the emails and then understand what is out there has been very useful for us. This is extremely useful with the huge volume of transactions that we are taking. We get close to over a thousand invoices in a day. 

I would like it to be more user-friendly.

The one thing that we would really like to see is the licensing. UiPath is selling on a per-bot model. What I find with other companies is they give it as a SaaS solution and that you subscribe to it. UiPath manages how many bots you need, whatever intelligence you're using, and then you give us a total solution. Changing licensing would probably interest us in the long run.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

It is pretty stable. We have not had major issues.

We can scale it up. However, the cost again is a factor. The cost of scaling up is high.

I have not been involved with technical support. Our team would talk to UiPath if there were a problem. I haven't had personal experience.

We did not previously use a different solution.

I was involved in the deployment and initial setup. It was straightforward. 

It was straightforward in the sense that we used it in a very limited way first as a proof of concept. Therefore, it was simple to just deploy it on a desktop at first, where we didn't even use the server. We deployed it on the desktop to see if it was able to scan and to see if it was able to read the mail. In that sense, it was simplistic. 

We ran into issues as we were scanning it, sometimes it was classifying it right, and sometimes not. So we had to bring machine learning in for it to be accurate. Therefore, while we did run into some complexity, deployment-wise, it was simple.

Our strategy was simple: informing the infrastructure team that spun up a VM for us. 

We did not use any integrator, reseller, or advisor.

We have definitely seen an ROI. We compare it to the number of hours saved. For each process we do, we measure it by the number of hours we save across the globe. That's how we are measuring ROI now. We don't have hard dollar amounts.

The solution is expensive. 

Initially, it maybe was $8,000 or $10,000. However, as the number of bots increases, the pricing has to come down. That said, with volume, we don't see that. 

Price will definitely be a factor if we decide to use UiPath down the road. Even looking into this Studio Web, I was thinking, "Okay, I can upgrade immediately to the newer version." Then, if we need two or three more Studio Webs due to the development that we need to do, or even the Citizen Developer, the bot, it's going to become very expensive if we need to take off. Therefore, the volume should provide some sort of discount. 

We did evaluate Automation Anywhere. 

Automation Anywhere was offering a SaaS model, which we like. However, the cost was expensive, and also the scalability wasn't what we needed. We are just at the beginning of the automation journey. When we were evaluating it, we didn't have that many bots that could justify that cost. Right now, we are at the point where we are maybe at eight to ten bots. It is taking off pretty fast at this point. Managing it may become an issue for us at some point, and maybe with the scalability, that model may offer more value to us. I don't think UiPath offers that as a cloud.

We are still surfacing demand for automating processes based on sustainable or environmental causes. We aren't using any automation to promote any good causes just yet.

I have yet to be a part of UiPath's user community and have yet to understand what they offer.

We haven't gotten into the UiPath Academy. We partnered with a couple of vendors, and I'm not sure if they're Academy-certified people.

At this time, while we do use AI, I'm not sure if it's UiPath's AI. We are still surfacing the process. We've done a proof of concept, and we have to measure the metrics to see if it makes sense for us to move ahead. 

For us, at least, the cost is the biggest factor for us to scale up. For others evaluating the solution, they need to look at ten years down the road or what is their vision for automation. Only then can they effectively evaluate the products. 

This solution was simple, and it was easier to use, so we took this first, and now we're pretty much married at this point. There isn't anything to complain about, however, if we had the vision to see where we would be, we might have looked at other products more. I don't have any complaints as of this point. As of now, the cost is the biggest sticking factor for us.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

You have the studio licensing, and the orchestrator. The architecture is complex, at least from a business point of view. There are a lot of moving parts that I have to work with. As with any product, I would just want it to be up and running immediately without the hassle of maintenance. I feel the maintenance factor in this product is high.

We use it to transfer information from one system to a government system.

We also use UiPath to automate processes that track mileage on vehicles, which would then allow us to calculate some of the GHG emissions.

It has really helped us become more efficient. UiPath has made the lives of our data operators a lot easier because they would normally have had to manually enter all this information or transfer data.

AI Computer Vision has been great because it works through VMware. It's able to see the elements through the VMware window on the government system that we interact with.

UiPath's user community is great. I get a lot of answers and am able to talk to folks who know the products and can provide support directly.

The UiPath Academy courses are an easy way to learn how to use Studio.

The licensing has been a challenge in terms of what is included with our current license. They've changed it a bit.

The learning curve to get UiPath up and running is hard, although we're pretty comfortable with it now.

Promoting its use is the hardest part for us. It's tough to get people to believe in using the assistant or Studio without fearing the loss of their jobs.

I've been using UiPath for about five years.

It's very stable, and we've never had an issue with it.

UiPath is easy to scale. If we want to share the bot or the scripts, it is easy to do so with other team members. It is also easy to add licensing and grow the current bot or create a new one.

Our experience with UiPath's technical support has been really good. We get great responses to tickets when we need help. On a scale from one to ten, I would give technical support a ten.

Positive

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We learned Studio, started with a simple script or bot, and grew from there. Our implementation strategy was to look at our highest demand for transferring data and make the bot do that.

Our ROI is that instead of having a team of seven people to manually do the data transfer, we now have two people.

The pricing is fair.

We looked at Blue Prism and went with UiPath because of its ease of use, the Magic Quadrant rating, and the price.

It's great software and has helped us a lot. It gives us a competitive edge.

Overall, I'd rate UiPath at nine out of ten and would advise you to go for it.

Our company is in the insurance industry and uses the solution to run RPA processes for the claims department to free up staff time. 

The scheduler tool is valuable because I can slow or speed up run times during peak use. 

Our solution is on-premises so we are unable to utilize phone apps.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution's stability is 100% and really good because it never goes down.

The solution offers the best scalability of any known product. 

I have not utilized technical support because that is handled by other team members. 

I personally did not use another product prior to learning the solution. 

I was not involved in the initial setup. 

We track ROI quarterly and through Q2 we have saved more than $100,000 by using automated processes. 

We are getting to the point of reaching full ROI but need to build more automated processes to reach that goal. 

I am sure my company evaluated other options but the solution was already in place when I joined the team. 

I utilized Academy courses to understand the solution's full capabilities but haven't yet used many of those features such as AI. I am currently learning about OCR and plan to use AI in the future. 

Learning the solution is a case of "I don't know what I don't know" so it is important to become aware of all the tools at your disposal. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Often, the solution is used for a lot of connecting data from different systems, et cetera. Also, a lot of tasks involve taking data from Excel or an email and putting it into different PDFs at high volumes and then saving everything in a certain spot in the file directory.

With UiPath, people can do more knowledge work and don't have to spend as much time doing menial tasks. For example, connecting the different systems and handling large volumes of Excel and PDFs. From what I've seen with clients, that's really common. Typically, tasks with data like that would take like a lot of time. The same with pulling reports from a website and then having to run a tableau dashboard and refresh R code. There are a lot of different layers that RPA is able to connect to and with, which is cool.

I like that you can automatically take a picture of what you're getting the selector for. For example, the next developer can tell what was on the screen. That way it’s easy to transfer from developer to developer, which is sometimes difficult.

I also really like being able to put notes on each of the activities. That's really valuable for me. Even if I'm not passing it to somebody else, it reminds me of what I was doing.

On a grander scale, there's definitely other stuff, however, those are just little things that I find valuable.

The one bot that pulls reports runs the R code and then refreshes the Tableau dashboard saves a lot of time. I can't recall the number exactly, however, without the bot, it takes a long time to pull those reports manually. I’m talking half a day for one person. And we may need to pull 20 or 30 reports per day. The website takes a long time to load, which means for a person it's just a lot of sitting time, which is very annoying.

We’ve used the UiPath Academy courses. It’s well-known that UiPath's training is the best of any of the tools, including Blue Prism, Power Automate, or Automation Anywhere. Power Automate in particular doesn't really have as much specific training. With UiPath, the pictures and the hands-on nature, and just the scrolling is cool. The training looks cool and it's very helpful. After you take the training, you can actually go and do something. It's not like you've just read about it.

The biggest value in the Academy is the paths. You can choose to go down a certain path. It's nice to have it curated. Also, there’s definitely the hands-on piece that sets it apart. In some other solution’s training, they just describe the different features of the tool. With UiPath, it’s interactive and you have to do it. Part of the assessment is you have to do that big RA framework process, which is good due to the fact that, with just training, you've already done it. You’re already using the tool.

Building automation with UiPath is very easy. It has a good interface. I like how you can nest certain activities. It makes things more visible. The modular approach of having different pages and then invoking them is very intuitive.

We just use attended automation right now as there is a lot of proof of concepts going on. We're hoping to get to more unattended automation soon since that seems to be a big, high-value area.

In general, and maybe this is not the tool's fault specifically, however, more awareness of the limitations for federal clients needs to be considered. There is a lot of the cool stuff that we've heard about, and I'm probably going to hear about today, that we can't really use due to security.

A particular part of the platform hasn't been ATOD. If there's any way that UiPath could help support even more the federal clients by saying "hey, this is not going to break your system" that would be really helpful as some of it would be very valuable to them. It's just getting it past the review process that is the challenge right now, and security is the main concern.

For citizen developers, Studio is difficult. It's just too over their head. They don't want to finish the training. They're getting fed up. They already have their own job and they're just not as bought in on the process which is the tone set at the top. Their management has to deal with that. It just doesn't seem very realistic overall sometimes for a lot of clients to have citizen developers.

I've been using the solution for about two years.

Sometimes clients think that they can just do something and then it runs forever. People who actually work with it know that it's going to break and you're going to have to fix it. However, that's part of the process. When it first starts running, you're going to have to make it better. There needs to be managing of expectations. It's going to give you value, however, it's not going to be perfect the first time, which is just not even the automation's fault. It's sometimes the systems. You have to learn the quirks of the systems and the systems that it works with. For example, a website might have a pop-up that you wouldn't expect. It'll break, and clients will ask "why is this broken?" You have to explain the bot doesn't know how to handle everything.

In theory, the scalability is great. In practice, if clients hear "oh, you can just build a bot and then put it out to everybody" - that's not really the case. There's going to be that deployment and configuration process where you have to work with each of the analysts or whoever you're working with to actually make it work on the computer. There might be more expectation management needed. Sometimes, for example, a computer has quirks, and we have to do this and that. That said, overall, after you get situated, it's very easy to manage from the orchestrator new packages, et cetera. My assumption is that it is good.

The responsiveness was quick, however, in my case, I wasn't really able to get the question answered. It was actually about licensing for one client. They were not as immediate in terms of their service, however, it was still good. We got an outcome. It just took a little bit longer than we expected to come to the conclusion.

The initial implementation was pretty straightforward. It wasn't specifically at my organization, however, one of the clients did an implementation from the ground up and we helped them get UiPath. It was us coordinating with UiPath reps, and it was pretty straightforward.

For our part, it was just knowing what licenses to get and working with, and knowing the client's situation. We were working closely with the UiPath reps to say "this is what they need" and then we just got it for them. I thought it would be a lot more complicated to know what license structure they would need, however, it turned out just fine.

I don't remember the length of that project. Deployment might have been around eight months for the whole thing to get situated and start being used.

We worked with UiPath to help our client set up the solution.

We've seen an ROI in UiPath. We just had a bot challenge with one client where they showcased different automation that they've made throughout the organization, and the numbers were great. I cannot remember the exact numbers, however, they were impressive.

The whole UiPath model is a bot for every person, so the attended licensing is obviously where the money goes. I don't know how realistic that is for a lot of clients. It makes a lot more sense to focus on making the process mining, task capture, and those type of tools, very user-friendly for people who would otherwise want to consider citizen developers.

You have to identify like the people who want to be citizen developers. There are really not many of those people, in my experience. One time I was working with somebody, and she didn't know where the start button was - and she was one of the people they had identified as a citizen. For her, this solution is not going to work.

Companies need higher-up people who know their organization and can identify those people. That's an internal thing. Overall, I would love to see UiPath figure out their financing to re-pivot and focus on citizen developers and get really good at identifying processes. Either way, we're still going to have dedicated people who actually develop and perfect as StudioX even is way above a lot of clients I've worked with. Taking into account all of my clients there has been one guy who could use Studio.

I've looked at Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere.

With Blue Prism, the pro is that the grid in the development environment makes it easy to align and then see from a very high level what your process is doing, which UiPath is lacking. Even though you have the workflows where you don't have to have everything on the page, you can invoke stuff from other pages. That's nice. However, it's still not as visually apparent in terms of what's going on, unless you put a lot of notes, which some people just don't do. Blue Prism is good at the high-level view. I don't like them for almost everything else. It's very antiquated. I know they came up with RPA, the name and everything, however, I don't think they've kept up with the current energy of the industry. Also, their training is not good and the online community is not at all as strong as UiPath. 

With Automation Anywhere, the development, everything about that has gotten better recently. It has mostly improved due to the fact that they were coming from a really low place. I did not like that tool a couple of years ago. Then, they redid their training, and the interface became a lot different. They've gotten better. However, they are still not my favorite tool. The use cases that the tool is geared toward are not always as broad as what UiPath can handle. I do not like the search functionality for the different activities. If you type into, which is a UiPath phrase for an activity, in Automation Anywhere it won't recognize the phrase. They don't use it as a search function. You have to type exactly the name of the activity. I understand that they don't want to accommodate the exact verbiage that UiPath uses, however, it's annoying. In UiPath, if you type in something similar, it'll still bring up similar activities, even if it's not exactly the name, which is nice. Sometimes you can't remember the exact wording and it's good there's an option to search in a way that will show you the closest options.

With UiPath, the pros are the training. With getting new people up to speed, you would never say "let's start you on Blue Prism." It's too complicated. The UiPath training is really good,  and the developer community and online forums are usually accurate, which is more than you say for some other stuff. Overall, the usability of the UiPath tool, the deployment, and the interfaces of everything we've seen are a lot cleaner. Even on a basic level, the solution just looks cool. The main downside is the lack of awareness surrounding what government clients can use and what they can't and then work to tailor to that.

We are a UiPath partner. 

We have one client that is on version 20.4.3, however, most others are on the latest version of the solution.

We do not use the UiPath apps feature or UiPath's AI functionality right now.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I would love to see a change in the process mining and differentiation on how they're catering toward the citizen developers. That would be outstanding and would show a lot of self-awareness for the company. Maybe I'm just totally cut off from the commercial sector and maybe they have brilliant people who are just ready to develop immediately, however, that is not what I've seen across all of my clients.