UiPath Reviews

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.

We're the shared services divisions to contact centers and handle back-office work. Most of our use cases with UiPath so far have been automating back-office work, taking information from Excel files, and putting them into legacy systems or some mainframe integrations. All of our robots, as of right now, are unattended automation. We haven't really used the attended robots just yet.

The primary benefit so far has been bringing up and updating other processes so that I can move on to other more valuable processes. I no longer need to copy here and paste there. It's taken the robot part of the job out of my hands. 

I have not actually developed anything with it directly. I manage the people who do. The little bit of training that I did, was pretty straightforward. I was using the rapid development tools. If you truly want to build something that's stable and fast, you really have to get in there and at a much deeper level than I got. That said, from what I did, it looked easy.

UiPath has saved the company costs. With the automation we've had so far, we're probably in the 20 to 30 FTE savings range so far.

The solution has reduced human error. It helps in the sense that, if you take a process of humans doing it and give it to a robot that's always following a set of rules when it encounters a certain value, it's always going to handle it a certain way. It's the consistency that the automation provides that has been great.

I’m not sure if the solution has freed up employee time. That's tough to evaluate due to the fact that the FTE that would have been doing this manual process would just mostly get moved to perform more valuable work. It has freed up time by allowing us to allocate those resources to higher-value tasks.

We have used the UiPath Academy courses. They are all good. We've had developers go through the UiPath training. In fact, that's a requirement when developing. They have to at least complete the training. We have at least one developer that's gone through it completely. It's a fundamental starting point to training people on UiPath. We've taken internal people and they train them ourselves.

We also appreciate the fact that the Academy is free to use. Right off the bat, due to the fact the Academy was free, we were able to say, okay, complete the training. You have to complete the training in order to be able to develop. Right away, it became part of our standard. We see the value in it.

The speed could be improved. In some cases, when I have to ask analysts to estimate how much licensing we need, we have to figure out how long it's going to run, and right now we go with the worst-case scenario, that the robots are going to run no faster than the human. That's been our stereotype. We've used other platforms in the past, where I could perform a transaction to some websites in three seconds, however, for UiPath it was 10 seconds. That was even after we did some enhancements to make UiPath as fast as we could. I know it's the internals with the way that the platforms work, however, from our robot's perspective, speed seems to be a barrier.

We started using the solution in late 2019.

The solution is stable. 

I have not had any direct relationship with the support from UiPath. When I do have a technical issue, I'm to engage with an internal team and they are the ones that have the relationship with UiPath support.

We did use a cloud solution previously. We switched to UiPath on-premises as UiPath's on-prem deployment was more aligned with our security constraints. 

We've had multiple projects. Some have been very complex and others have been perfect. It's dependent on the projects that we're using it for. Some were a little bit more complex.

It's my understanding that, while the company likely did look at other options, I was not engaged in those meetings. While I recall some high-level conversations, they didn't say which ones we were actively evaluating.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

I have not used the AI functionality in my automation program yet.

In terms of functionality, UiPath does quite well. The fact that it's not net-based gives it a lot of flexibility to use it in a non-standard way. For example, we were building a robot interface with an Oracle database, and we could either build a robot to open up an access database with blank tables and pull it down. Or we, due to the fact that it did not have access to the net, could grab an in-memory data set and cycle through that. I liked that flexibility and the fact that we had options.

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

Our primary use cases are in our financial department. We had a bit of a downturn, but we still had work that needed to be completed. So we developed several automations to manage a lot of the financial work and a lot of our payment processing systems. We expanded that out to include more of our traders' work processes, just because we saw there were a lot of workloads coming in and a lot of repetitive work. So we used UiPath to eliminate a lot of that for our commercial traders, then we did the same thing for our operations and production teams so that they have their own automated processes.

We plan on scaling it and using it in more functions.

Our biggest metrics are in our financial org, they have more of a cost avoidance where we don't have to backfill those positions. It's around $2 million a year because we don't have to bring in personnel to complete the processes.

It has helped solve certain human errors but that's an unintended bonus because we're automating a process as it is that a machine is going to repeat. We don't really have a person to do it.

UiPath has helped to free up employee time. The additional time enabled us to focus on higher-value work. By removing a lot of the repetitive work, it's given them the ability to do more analytics and to dive into the data science realms of their job to do more data-driven analysis of what they're doing.

The ability to do citizen development is the most valuable feature. That initiative has helped us to expand it because that gives folks that are closer to the business the ability to develop their own solutions that are tailored to what they need to do, as opposed to waiting for someone in IT to contact them to build it out. Or to wait for a business analyst to provide some type of value metric, but they can actually go and build it themselves.

My job is to actually be the evangelist to these groups. I'd say we've been pretty successful. My developers are working with the citizen developers who help to guide them and to teach them how to build their own automations for their business process.

It's pretty easy to build automation. The no-code process has really driven the adoption by the business people so that they don't have to skill up and learn how to code anything. They only need to know how to click a button and build it out. That's the best component.

We used the UiPath Academy course. It's our training regimen for our business users. We have to introduce them first to the platform and understand how to work through the platform. It's a pretty straightforward and easy course. With our citizen development program, we also have the Academy where they can either do hands-on learning or use the Academy to get some video training as well.

The biggest value of the Academy is the ease of being able to access the training. 

Governance has room for improvement but that's more of a cultural thing. It depends on your company. We have the reference architecture that we have in place, but it's easy for someone to say, "Okay, I need to make an adjustment here outside of that reference architecture." Because it's so easy for them to do that, they leave the company now that a non-compliant bot is out there running a production process, we need to be able to rank that in. There needs to be footwork that we have to do as an organization for my team as opposed to a true problem with the platform.

We have been using UiPath for around five years now. It's the on-prem version, but we have it deployed in the cloud in our Azure tenant. We started on-prem then we migrated it about three years ago.

It's pretty stable. It's more of the architecture and how it runs because it has to leverage VDIs and as Microsoft releases an update, we have to be watching that process because it'll make the box really brittle. Any change to the UI anywhere will break and that's where we have to step in and fix it.

Every corner of the business except for folks out in the field uses UiPath. It's around 200 people or so.

We've had a little bit of back and forth whenever we have an issue and some of the solutions we got back were pretty boilerplate-type answers. We had an issue with a Microsoft update. They said, "Well, could you potentially reach out to Microsoft and have them let you know." 

They're just going to release the update. We need to be a little bit more proactive on the software side. Our account executive took care of it for us. He stepped in and enabled us to not have that response again. 

I wasn't there for the initial setup but I heard about it. It was complex, but that was more of a cultural thing.

The deployment took around a year to get that through planning, discovery, and implementation.

Our biggest return is our cost avoidance and not having to backfill personnel.

I think the pricing is comparable. It's fair pricing for the size that we're deploying.

My advice would be to make sure that you have a really good understanding and a really good culture in your company that understands and wants to get on board with automation because it will require that type of mindset of understanding what you're doing before you do it.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

I'm working on a supply chain management project, where some of the distributors are eligible for some of their stock to be returned. The beginning of this stock rotation, and the interactions, are through email. It was previously done by representatives, but we are now automating that process so that we interact with the distributors using email. Responses are sent based on the validations that the bot performs. It's an end-to-end process, all automated using the UiPath.

The project I'm working on creates a lot of availability for employees to concentrate on other activities. Human interaction is reduced. Instead of all the management representatives interacting with front-end people, UiPath is interacting through the API. It has increased the time available to our associates who were working on that particular process. If 10 people were working on a particular process, that number has been reduced to three or four, and the other people have been able to concentrate on something else. The stock rotation process itself would usually take a month in a particular region, but that has been reduced to less than 15 days.

We have also automated a few processes that have human and bot interaction, using UiPath Action Center. When there is human interaction in a particular process, it takes a lot of time. But when we integrated a process with the bot through Action Center, the time needed for the human interaction was reduced. It gives time back to the person who would be doing repetitive work. For example, if a value is different from what the bot is expecting, an Action Center task will be triggered and the human will submit the input that is needed. The rest of the process will then be taken care of by the bot. So the time spent on a particular validation is reduced.

Also, if you compare the situation from a couple of years back, when I started using UiPath, and the present, there has been a lot of change in the way UiPath comes up with new products when it comes to document validation, such as Document Understanding. That does speed up the digital transformation process, and I haven't seen any requirements for additional infrastructure as a condition for benefiting from that transformation process.

UiPath has also helped to reduce human error, and that reduces the time that a particular process takes to run.

For beginners, UiPath is a very low-code or no-code experience. They can get started with StudioX. The best place to learn the solution is the UiPath Academy. If they come across any hurdles, the forum is an excellent place to post them and get answers. As a community, UiPath is very encouraging for newcomers. People with no coding experience can automate processes.

Initially, because I was working with Automation Anywhere, the switch was a little bit overwhelming. There are comparatively more Activities in UiPath. The scope is very large; you can automate large processes. But eventually, I have come to feel that building automation is easier in UiPath than with Automation Anywhere.

Also, in my experience using UiPath automation, we have not had to make any changes to infrastructure. It has really been a seamless interaction.

We don't use the UiPath Apps feature yet. I did a PoC on it and it looks like a wonderful product. But when we are using Action Center with Apps, the Action Center stage is built in Orchestrator, but the same field is not built in the Apps. We have to work around that particular process, to make Action Center and Apps work together. Action Center waits for a particular input when a particular task is triggered. This stage is not built in Apps. UiPath Apps should be stepped up in terms of its functionality and integration with other UiPath products.

I have been using UiPath for almost three years.

I did come across an issue very recently where, when I had to update the version of the Activity package I used for a particular deployment, the Data Table Activity, it did not list the way it had been listed. I raised a question in the forum, but there was no clear answer. Apart from that, I haven't seen any other instability with UiPath.

UiPath is scalable. We have deployed bots across many regions. There was no limit in that respect. I haven't seen any issue; the scalability is good.

I work in the automation center of excellence in our company. There are 50 to 60 teammates there, working on UiPath and Automation Anywhere. In UiPath, they work on the automation of SAP. In addition to my work on supply chain automation, there are a couple of projects dealing with our customers' needs. Our organization builds products that are generic and we then customize them to meet those customer needs. There are also some projects where Excel activity is the focus. And we recently started using Document Understanding in a PoC. We generally have two or three developers working on deployment, along with one DevOps person. Not many people are required for deployment.

I haven't contacted UiPath tech support, other than posting that Data Table Activity question in the forum.

I was working with Automation Anywhere for a year or so, but because of the requirements of our company, I had to switch to UiPath. The switch happened because a customer we work for deploys UiPath.

I have been able to learn things like interaction with multiple enterprise systems, including OBI, using API calls. Unlike other automation applications I have used, implementing a process using UiPath is very easy.

In terms of end-to-end automation, there are products that are useful for identifying processes for automation. But for the process I'm working on right now, we did not use UiPath to implement end-to-end automation. Identifying the process for automation was done separately. Only building the bot was done in the UiPath. The process is not end-to-end, except for the bot development. When I think of "end-to-end," it includes identification of the process for automation. From there, you need to build up the process, the documentation, et cetera. End-to-end is important, as it means you aren't switching between multiple tools.

We use it to automate searches in public databases. We have lawyers who need to search for various companies. For example, we are searching insolvency files for a list of business partners, so we use the robot to perform the search and notify clients about its results. Thus, it helps us with our work in searching public registries.

We have the Studio license and attended robots.

It enables us to provide new services, e.g., our use case is something that we could not have delivered manually. Now that we use the robot, it is something that we can offer to clients. Therefore, it has helped us expand our scope of services and offer to clients more competitive fees. We are now trying to get more clients.

If we were to do this manually, it would take us one day for 200 companies. Now, it takes about half an hour. So, it has reduced our time to process information. Before, we didn't offer these services on a mass scale. We just often did it for a couple of companies. Now, we can offer it on a larger scale.

One of the departments in our organization does use UiPath for compliance purposes: To send reminders to our clients. We have to ensure that clients are compliant when they submit financial statements. We use the robot to send them reminders to update the steps of compliance, i.e., if it's done. This is not my team, but another team who uses it for compliance purposes. It has increased their level of compliance because it's timely and there are no errors in the reminders.

We mostly value the fact that it easily interacts with existing systems. We don't have to go to a complex interface to access public information to send the emails, etc. This is the good part.

Its ease of management is okay. Our attended robots have some Excel files that we use to manage and configure the robots. It is quite straightforward.

It has helped relieve the legal staff of the burdensome task of searching on the public registry. For them, this has been a big improvement. It saves time and also the risk of human error has been reduced, because now the robot does the work. So, you don't get bored when you check 2,000 companies on the portal. The staff is overall more satisfied because they can do more value-added tasks than performing this search.

The pricing for Orchestrator and unattended robots could use improvement. If we plan to roll out and implement more robots, then perhaps lower costs on Orchestrator and unattended robots would make adoption even easier. 

For roughly a year and a half.

So far, the stability has been good. We haven't had any issues.

If you have an attended robot, then it is scalable to a certain extent, but this is because of the price tag. If you think through your use cases, then you can use the same license for multiple purposes. If we think of scalability in the sense of changing the process, then this is something that can be done, but it requires extra development time. So, it's rather scalable.

We have two lawyers using this robot. Their role is to monitor the robot and make sure that the robot works fine. For example, if there are any complaints from the clients, then they can respond.

We, in legal, are among the first to use this robot to my knowledge. Other than a couple of robots that I've mentioned in this review, I'm not aware of other robots.

The technical support is very good. They were very responsive. We had a question about the license and they replied very quickly.

We did not previously use another solution. We decided to implement an RPA solution because we wanted to streamline our processes. We also wanted to be able to offer and develop new services for our clients. For these particular use cases, using other technology solutions would have been more expensive and complicated to set up.

The initial setup was a bit complex. We are a very big company with a lot of IT centers. I think the complexity was on our side. The initial part of setting up the virtual machine and installing the licenses took roughly two months. After that, the development time was very short: one week.

Our experience, as administrators of the platform, is quite good. Once the robot is set up, it is very easy to see the results, reports, and if there are any errors. It is quite easy to use.

The robot that searches for insolvency cases was built in one week. After that, we have been testing it and making adjustments, but the construction and development time were very short.

It speeds up digital transformation because it's easy to implement and have it live. Therefore, it is something that we can use very easily to streamline our operations. 

I handled the project and managed the discussion with our IT. We had several infrastructure teams who set up the virtual machines and helped us install the licensing. We had a third-party developer who developed the robot. We also had an internal team who tested the implementation. I oversaw everything.

We were happy with the third-party developer.

Now, there are several providers/developers who can build UiPath robots quite easily and at affordable prices. So, in our case, it was quite a straightforward process of building the robot.

Our processing time was reduced to half an hour. Something that would have taken up the whole day (eight hours) was reduced to half an hour. This has freed up our legal staff’s time to focus on more important and strategic tasks.

What we have managed to do is to offer a completely new service. It is something that we did not offer on a regular basis or big scale. Using RPA, we can offer it to a larger scale with the reduced costs.

The pricing is okay, but I recommend to build a business case before going live. Ensure that you really use the license and building the robot makes sense. Try to think of multiple use cases, because one license can be used for several robots.

There are additional costs for using third-parties. We also have internal costs with the infrastructure and for the virtual machines where the robot operates.

The costs are quite affordable. It is a solution that makes sense from a business perspective.

We didn't do a very formal business review process.

I think the platform is very good.

Have a good consultant advise you on the processes of automations: How to build the use case and business case. You will need a bit of knowledge around RPA and business processes to be able to have a successful implementation. 

Have a stronger technical partner tool to help with developing the robot, making adjustments, testing, etc. Testing is very important. It is important that you allocate resources for testing.

Robots can do things in a different manner than we can and more efficiently. We have to be creative and think of processes, even if only part of them are repetitive, that we can automate and a human can work with the robot. Then, the overall the process is improved and our experience as humans is a lot better.

I would this solution a 10 out of 10 because they are very good at what they do. It's very important that you understand what the solution can do and its limitations. However, for this type of product, I think they are the best.