UiPath Reviews

We have a variety of projects we use it for. We have automated about 72 processes within six verticals, including sales, finance, HR, and purchasing.

It has helped our client save thousands of dollars, for sure. That is really what they have found to be the biggest benefit of using UiPath. The cost of the product is low because they're using it continuously. It saves cost and it helps them gain more returns.

Our main projects are mostly around SAP and Excel. We have used most of the features available, especially the ones that support SAP and Excel activities. Those are the ones that we have found to be most useful.

UiPath is easy to use and there is less coding. That is very helpful for the development team when it comes to building projects. It's very flexible and really makes our team more efficient. The turnaround time of development is good. 

There is some scope for improvement, especially in the area of variables. Some variables are used in specific workflows and some variables are global. It would help if there was a repository that would showcase which variable is global and which is local to a workflow.

UiPath should also help us whenever we are changing versions. Whenever we make those changes, UiPath should help by documenting the versions and sending us comments on the changes made in UiPath. If that were available, that would really help.

I would also like to see something related to auditing. That would really help the development and peer review teams to identify the gaps, instead of going through the sequence one by one. If there were an auditing tool that clearly brings out issues, that would really help.

We have been using UiPath for four years.

UiPath is a stable solution.

They are plugging in a lot of features that are really helping our teams. It is scalable.

For this year, we don't have plans to increase our usage of the solution, but it depends on our client.

The technical support is good and they respond to us all the time. Whenever we require support, they are with us.

They have a standard questionnaire that we have to complete and send in, and they come back with standard responses. At critical times, instead of the standard response, if they could do a direct call that would really help us. Instead of one or two levels of questionnaires, if they could directly get on a call, that would help us. Hence I rate them eight out of 10.

Positive

I was not part of the initial setup, but I am involved in the renewals.

The renewals could be easier. The documentation is lacking. When you are renewing your licenses, you might encounter errors but there are no proper documents available to explain how to handle these errors.

In terms of maintenance, our automation processes require some attention but UiPath, as an application, does not, other than updates.

There is ROI over a period of years. From the second year onward, it would be around 25 to 30 percent.

The pricing and licensing are okay. It's quite affordable.

There are a few things that come with additional cost. They are mostly features. For example, Document Understanding is an additional feature that you have to pay extra for.

I would recommend it to new users who are choosing among automation tools. 

Also, if a company is new to it or the users who are setting up are new to it, they should be aware of the preparations involved in setting up the environment and setting up UiPath. That can be a little challenging if they are not aware of certain things.

I rate UiPath at eight out of 10. There are a few features or approaches they could enhance, such as an option to view all the variables, as I mentioned earlier. Also, since the code can be very big, we might be searching for certain things that are not available. I'm more concerned about the debugging and evaluation parts. 

And in Orchestrator there are a lot of features they can enhance.

We suggested UiPath for one of our company's clients to automate DevOps processes. This is a part the company doesn't want to touch. They tried automating with Ansible Playbook and Terraform. We wanted to eliminate human intervention altogether. We are still transitioning from dev to staging and then production. We have done most of the research. We will move from staging to production if it works with our architecture and can be scaled.

Our client is one of the biggest companies out there. There are maybe a million users worldwide. They primarily focus on the Asia-Pacific region, but there are also users in Europe and the Americas. The client has several web applications and a hybrid structure. Some data are on the cloud, while other data is on the on-premise servers. We created solutions for them over the years. We have an SI and DevOps team working in parallel for years. Our goal was to automate everything that could happen without intervention. 

It's a massive project that will take time, and we still haven't moved out of development. We try to make the processes more streamlined. All the associates are researching it and working on their parts. Right now, I can only say how it has benefited me. I've automated some fundamental DevOps tasks. 

It saves a lot of time because you don't have to come in on weekends to provide service or troubleshoot. You can automate these tasks and schedule them to run automatically. You can optimize your work and how you spend your time. For example, some services need to be routinely patched, so we automated patching every third Sunday. However, we still needed to come in on weekends to troubleshoot after the patch was applied. 

We have shadow scripting to automate these processes, but we had to go online to see if it's up and the ports are open. I automated this with UiPath and scheduled it for the weekend, so I no longer need to come in on weekends. It saves around two to four hours per week. That is about 16 hours a month. It wasn't easy in the early stages. It took around two months to understand the tool. I was also working on other projects simultaneously.

There is a recording feature that copies each step of a task. You can automate every process via this recording. It's a cool feature that helps you define the variables. I also like their trial version, which lets you experiment with the solution and learn the capabilities before buying the license.

I still haven't used the drag-and-drop APIs, but I look forward to this feature. We currently use Jenkins for our continuous integration tools. There are some APIs from Jenkins, and we extract the job details from those APIs.

UiPath's interface and user experience could be improved. The name is UiPath, but their UI is not that great. It's outdated. It seems like a 2014 or 2015 software. They should look at other products on the market.

Another thing is that UiPath lacks online training resources. Maybe they can start their own YouTube channel. You have to rely on the documentation to learn. There are some resources, but they aren't available on the official site.

We have been using UiPath for six months.

UiPath is quite stable. I haven't seen any downtime. I can also pause the upgrade itself if I don't want the upgrades to cause instability. The long-term version is available as well.

We are still in the development stage, so we don't know whether it will be scalable. 

I have never had a need to contact UiPath support. I usually try to Google answers or figure the issues out on my own. 

I am from the build release team, so I automate the deployment and build process. I work on CI/CDs and try to automate most things. The deployment was highly complex. I was new to this project, so it was challenging for me. I was learning on the job and trying to understand the process itself because it was already partially built when I joined, and I was responsible for making some of it. 

The application takes about 10 to 20 seconds to install, but it will take around a week to build the infrastructure. We are just replacing the web service, not the whole application.

We tried a blue-green strategy for implementation. We built blue nodes and ports similar to production and shifted the web services to the new one. If it is up and running and everything works fine, then we can close the previous one, and we can redirect traffic to the new one with the help of load balancers.

We have 25 people on our DevOps team who do everything from architecture to automation. They're not just dealing with one web application. There are hundreds of applications. I worked on several applications building the architecture and helping. For example, let's say we build or add some features to a project. To automate those features, we need to understand them and how it works on Kubernetes or other platforms.

It definitely needs maintenance because we deal with a large user base. It requires a lot of maintenance and downtime to make things work during staging and development. Maintenance is always necessary, and we are the ones who maintain it. We have four or five people on call weekly to maintain the solution. They are the responsible people or points of contact for the developers or application owners if something goes down or goes wrong.

UiPath's price is reasonable. It's not so high relative to the capabilities. I don't know about different licenses or more premium versions. Prices are negotiated on the corporate level. 

We considered Automation Anywhere. However, It doesn't allow for an extended trial. We needed to purchase a license after 50 tasks, and we didn't have enough budget to experiment. Blue Prism is also there. We had the same problem. There wasn't a trial version.

I rate UiPath eight out of ten. UiPath has excellent features, but you need to be patient enough to learn.

The solution has provided assistance with the removal of repetitive human transactional activities; document to text solutions; complex data extractions; cut and paste operations; information content management. This is either supported in promoting strategies with our business partners, or implemented at our clients, or included in products we develop for our clients. 

We use it in our own operations that have been migrated to other products or solved with coding or third-party software offering solutions to specific needs. Solutions are based on client sites and our clients pay for their own licensing.

The costs involved and the licensing model have forced us to recommend other solutions to our clients and to stop using UiPath internally due to constraints imposed on small businesses (specifically around the community edition). 

For our clients who can afford the licensing costs (Blue Chip Clients), the benefits have been to remove some repetitive activities from the target areas. 

In most cases, where there is a high-value resource impacted by these repetitions, there has been a cost-benefit in doing so, however, where the labor cost is below a certain threshold, the benefits are contained to error avoidance and reliability only with (additional) costs being migrated to support the technology and increasing overall IT OPS costs - particularly now with the increased fees and current licensing model.

The product as a whole is a valuable contributor to efficiency improvement. It integrates with ease (although some coding experience is required for higher/involved functions). We use it to streamline and support our customer operations primarily, but also to do internal acceleration on human-dependent (simple) tasks.

Simplification of complex task creation by introducing pre-coded objects is the single most attractive feature of the product. The choice between attended and unattended Bot applications with similar functionality is an advantage. 

Features are on track, however, service and cost models need to be reviewed to be market sensitive and related to the industry. Providing a great product at the wrong price without consideration to the economic conditions of the markets within which it is being offered, creates barriers and another product is sure to fill the void.

Closer integration with machine learning frameworks and matrix processing can be improved and will benefit low-cost/entry-level uptake and activation for some clients. Although pass-through options exist and have been activated, this is not sufficient to create encapsulated learning within the organizations and serves to improve third-party algorithms with added exposure to privacy (information systems security management) risks. 

I've been involved with UiPath since the launch in South Africa with Larc Technologies as the first UiPath solutions partner and reseller for the country.

No robotic solution can ever be classed as stable unless there are no change dependencies. It will always require more support than any other core technology - its the nature of the beast.

Running multiple robots in an environment requires orchestration, which is another expensive modality in the UiPath stable.

Consultations outside the normal service environments are strained, authoritative, and inflexible and there is little consideration for anything outside their immediate scope of vision and there is zero hesitance to move against initial strategic positioning and commitments. 

Neutral

We have been involved with and supported UiPath from the onset. We have also delivered enterprise solutions with BluePrism and Automation Anywhere. UiPath has proven to be capable, but costly and inflexible from a pricing and support model viewpoint.

It depends on the nature of the requirements and can be super complex or super easy. Supporting the bots are always a challenge and supervision (alerts, monitoring) is essential.

We work with excellent vendor implementation teams and have in-house competence in design and delivery. In most customer environments, there are competent implementation and maintenance resources for bot environments. Over the past 5 years, bot development, administration, and maintenance skills have improved, however, there is still a significant gap in proper orchestration and optimization within bot frameworks - which affects the overall cost and effectiveness of automation strategies.

At present, the ROI is negative for us as a company. For our clients, it varies. When all costs are considered (TCO) over a two-year period, financial breakeven is mostly attained with some negative ratios (if it's the wrong tool for the job). 

In most cases, there are intangible benefits. In all cases, IT operations cost increased and, in worst-case scenarios, the business benefit was short-lived as the technology costs escalated and the resource reduction potential was never attained.

HA and DR planning are essential when determining actual resource reduction potential.

UiPath is becoming expensive and will be outpricing themselves if they continue to enforce their current service configuration (model). Many clients have been impacted by the pandemic and instead of assisting to breach the gaps, there is a sense that UiPath is monetizing on the disaster.  

We looked at BluePrism, Automation Anywhere and we are now moving on to Open RPA - a viable option if you have the right skills to plug gaps. 

I am an automation consultant and most of the robots that I work on are unattended.

Some of our use cases involve end-to-end automation. One of them is an SAP system where the transaction data, material numbers, and other things are used for T-codes. Based on the value of data in the T-code, it opens other T-codes in the process and updates those registries accordingly. This may include, for example, T-codes one and two. Then, from T-code one, I need to get input with regard to my material numbers. This might be a materials invoice or the invoice numbers of material orders. With those, you have to put it in one T-code and get output.

Based on the output of the T-code one, you need to do the rest of the operations in T-code two and T-code three. Once the job is completed, update all the information about the different T-codes in an Excel sheet and then update it back to the system.

UiPath saves time both from the perspective of a developer and an end-user. I can talk about the two positions because I have been involved in both roles. On the development side, the features make it very easy and tasks that normally take half an hour can be completed in a minute or two.

With respect to the end-user, assume that a process normally takes an hour a day to complete. Once the automation is in place, the whole process will be done in a minute or two. Importantly, the user does not have to monitor the process because it runs in the back end or on a server in a remote location. The entire process will run without monitoring.

At the same time, the user will be informed. Let's say that you have to get some data out of it; most of the time, the data available every few days. Personally, given that I am not normally in the role of the end-user, I have to log in to all of the systems and look for the data. However, if UiPath is configured and developed properly then it will inform you in an email that the data is now available. Similarly, if there is no data available then it can be configured in such a way that the user will be informed of that. This would give the user the opportunity to save and plan to utilize their time for other purposes.

In our company, we have a lot of use cases where we were able to implement unattended automation. This meant that we saved a lot of time and we were able to reutilize the employees for more useful engagements. 

An additional thing that we are able to achieve through using an RPA like UiPath is a reduction in errors. When we are performing any kind of activity, such as a recalculation in Excel, or calculations in a step-by-step process that involves manually copying data between two places, there is a high chance that an error will occur. This is a human error that can be avoided once we implement the automation and move it to production. Ultimately, all of these types of errors will be eliminated.

It is difficult to estimate the total number of errors that we avoid, but I can say that we were able to save time and with each process, the number of errors is reduced.

The most valuable feature is the set of data scraping tools. You can scrape data into your tables, then easily transform it or convert it between formats. If UiPath or another similar automation tool was not there, it would be very difficult to automate something that is a UI- based application. There is no other option to get that back-end data out of it. If we were not able to convert the formatting, or if for whatever reasons we cannot extract the data into a table format, it would be very difficult for us to convert and get the data that we want. The data would be difficult to format and we would spend a lot of time on it.

UiPath provides the data in a table format and in a structured manner, which means that we are able to get the required value from the table and do the necessary calculations on it. It saves us a lot of time in this process.

We have started using the AI functionality but so far, not to any great extent. For example, we were able to identify different types of images while reading an invoice. Prior to using the AI capabilities, we were not able to read them. This is our only use case for AI at the moment, but we plan to explore other activities and possibilities.

We have used the UiPath Academy courses and by doing so, we were able to learn a lot of things. They had examples of use cases that can occur in different scenarios and instead of getting that from a live environment, or during development, we were able to learn it from the Academy and a live example.

With the Studio, we can do basic troubleshooting in the production machine or VM, in case any error occurs. This is helpful because we don't have to move the data back to the development machine.

The integration with APA should be improved with respect to adding data from external sources and being able to bring in data from third-party applications. Also, it should be better the other way around, where UiPath is providing APA data to other applications.

I have been using UiPath for the past four years.

If the application is working fine, without making any updates or changes, then the bot will work as expected about 95% of the time. However, if there are any changes to the end-application made by the developers, or there is a content change, then we definitely have to align to those changes and it will take time.

Generally speaking, we move a process to production once it is stable.

We can easily scale this solution so the scalability is quite good.

We have between 15 and 20 developers in my team who work with UiPath. I am not sure about the number of people on the other teams. In terms of end-users, there are more than 100.

I have developed 30 processes personally, and my team has created more than 200. We plan to continue using UiPath in the future.

We have used technical support and the UiPath technical team is good. Whenever there is help required, and we are not able to find the solution for that from the UiPath documentation, we get a ticket with the support team. Based on the criticality of the process, they help us.

We did not use another RPA solution prior to UiPath.

The initial setup is straightforward and very easy. The main component is called Orchestrator and then there are two more components called Studio and Development Robot. These two are connected to Orchestrator, and once the development is complete, you can do the unit testing on the same machine. After this, you publish the package.

Once the item is published, it will be pushed to the Orchestrator and then connected to the bot. This is where you're going to run the process. Once it is complete the bot will start running. The whole process will take approximately 10 minutes and you can move the data to production.

When the process is running in production, Studio allows you to troubleshoot from there, without having to move it back to the development machine.

I deployed UiPath on my own. They have provided enough documentation.

The pricing and licensing costs seem okay to me, although it is a little bit on the high side.

In the past, you needed to install the Studio license if you wanted to be able to troubleshoot in production. However, that has changed and you no longer need to buy it separately.

My advice for others who are implementing or using UiPath is to ensure that they test the robots and processes thoroughly before moving them to production.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Most of the automations that we work with are internal to our systems. We are also trying to use it with BPM.

We are reducing people's activities in our organization. For example, there are monthly reports that we have to upload and read, and it was taking a day to do this activity. Then, using UiPath, we can reduce that time to two hours. 

It has helped a lot to minimize our on-prem footprint. This is really important because it minimizes tasks that people work on, including myself.

If you automate with UiPath, you don't have to worry about firing someone who is doing the same process. Instead, you are giving that person more time for analysis for the information that UiPath brings in.

The OCR is something that is really cool. You can work with a lot of systems and use the HTML feature to interact with websites. I really like that it interacts with websites. 

UiPath Portal works great for accessing features.

UiPath provides single sign-on, which is very important, because we don't have to manage a lot of passwords.

It is fast. With UiPath Studio, you can get the passwords and work in it quickly. 

The UiPath Academy is great for learning the solution. It helped us a lot.

We would like to know how to implement the artificial intelligence (AI) feature because we are working on some activities in this area.

The bank knows about UiPath, but not all people consider UiPath something they really trust, which is why there are just two of us working on it full-time. We do teach people about UiPath, but they are not 100 percent involved with it.

The stability is usually really great. However, at this point, we are uploading a new version because the stability is not right. They told us that our version, 18.4.5, is not 100 percent compatible with Orchestrator. Therefore, we don't have the stability that we had before.

The scalability works great for us. It is really fast when we ask for something.

It is really fast at scaling automations. At the beginning, it was slow because we couldn't work the way that we wanted. Now, it scales automation quickly.

We haven't had contact with technical support because UiPath has been working great for us.

This is our first RPA solution.

Before Orchestrator, we worked on an application to manage UiPath because we didn't have Orchestrator two years ago. So, we create our own application to manage UiPath.

It was very easy to set up UiPath the first time. We implemented UiPath with virtual machines, and that didn't affect our costs in a significant way.

The timeframe for setting up a new bot for implementation depends on whether it will be big or small. It might take a day, if it is really easy, or a week.

Getting the idea to have a new bot for the first time is kind of complicated. Once you can explain how it will work or be a solution, then you can just go for it.

I have to be involved in the beginning when implementing a new bot. 

Two people from our bank were involved in the deployment. One person develops the solution and another does the QA.

We worked with a third-party (BDG) to set up UiPath. They were really good.

It has helped a little to reduce our work. Before, we had people working at 6:00 AM because they had to inspect, analyze, or look into the systems for prevention. For example, they had to prevent the systems from going down. Now, with UiPath, that person doesn't have to come early because we get everything in reports from UiPath. So, that person doesn't have to come early anymore. That person now just has to look at the report and see, for example, that UiPath did a fix in the morning. 

The solution really works for its price.

The license cost is the only cost to start a new bot. However, if we want UiPath to do an activity and go through another machine, like Remote Desktop, or application, like Bloomberg, then we have a special license that is an extra cost.

We also evaluated Automation Anywhere, but decided on UiPath, which is friendlier. We also considered that UiPath has its Academy and more documentation.

We are glad UiPath has security because not all the RPA solutions have security.

We are getting into AI now, because we haven't worked with that yet.

Right now, we are 100 percent familiar with Orchestrator.

We didn't have to install a lot of features with this infrastructure. We just download some activities to work with everything, and it works fine. We don't have a lot of infrastructure for using data.

Our first step is getting Orchestrator because we really want to have the entire bank involved in UiPath. The solution is great. It can reduce costs, especially with all that stuff that people do. We have big plans for UiPath going forward.

I would rate this solution as 10 (out of 10).

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.

We are using attended and unattended bots. The attended ones are very low profile. We are also using Orchestrator.

Our primary use case for this solution is to automate underwriting processes.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment, yet.

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. I think that we still struggle sometimes with what kind of a bot we need to use for what kind of work. It may be a lack of understanding on our side. We need to have more clarity on this.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. This is what I have heard from my team members. I did enroll in the training but I didn't make much progress. That said, I have heard good things about it.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately a six-month transition.

In terms of eliminating human errors, I would say that this solution has done so to a certain extent. The stuff that we are automating was quite simple to begin with. As such, there was not a lot of room for error because we have multiple verification steps. I cannot estimate a percentage for the reduction of human error.

I would say that we have a time-savings of approximately fifty percent.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the unattended robots because I can schedule my jobs and it can run on its own. I don't need to pay much attention, except in the case of an exception. That is the only time that I need to deal with it.

We sometimes struggle trying to figure out what kind of a bot we need to use for what kind of work, and it would be nice to have more clarity on this.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It is quite stable.

We have a team of ten developers who work with this solution.

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

We got involved in automation because it makes us more efficient and we save money. These are a few of the important things that we are always looking for.

The implementation of this solution was done in-house.

We have seen ROI because a lot of the work is now automated, so the people who used to do these tasks, the monotonous work, are now doing better things. I would say that we saw ROI in five to six months.

The licensing costs for the unattended bots are a little too expensive. If it were lower then I think we could use it more effectively.

We are excited about the upcoming features with artificial intelligence and document understand capabilities. I think that those are features that would come in quite handy for us.

My advice for anybody considering this solution is to take a look from the grand scale to see which use cases are the prominent ones. Do not look at all of the tiny details because sometimes we can make a use case very complex. The end result is less valuable. Look for the high-level stuff that can be quickly automated, then come down to the final stuff later.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I have completed an aviation project using this tool. It provided a nearly smooth and seamless performance. The environment was Windows, and we had to automate the Windows-based application. We had to extract data from Excel and put it into this tool and run the tool to get the results. Those results will then be sent to Excel again and will be used for providing better aviation data to the pilots.

UiPath has helped us in automating the manual repetitive stuff and helped accelerate our organization's growth rate by eliminating the stagnant and repetitive manual work. It has brought in an atmosphere of a change of thought process and driven the growth of innovative excellence.
I will definitely recommend this product to all those who are planning to chose an RPA tool but are confused on which to choose. I have worked with many RPA tools, but I found this as a proficient and user-friendly tool.

• Its ease of use
• The user interface is friendly.
• It has self-learning tutorials.
• It provides RPA advance training which provides a smooth path and helps in clearing the certification. 
• All Excel and manual work can be done very smoothly. 
• It provides REFramework which takes care of all the exception handling, and Orchestrator to remotely run the bots as per your convenience. 
• It provides us with UiPath Connect which is a one-stop platform for all your additional needs and for resolving issues.
• Its recording feature is great and looking up to its upcoming new feature: computer vision. 
• This tool is very easy and smooth to work with.

It could have been visually great and colourful. There are functionalities which need to be added to make automation work much easier like executing a test method by which we can test how the activity will work on that particular browser or stuff without running the whole workflow.

For some of the complex activities, visual demonstration of how that activity works should be provided. There are some minor bugs like we could not find the voting option for Outlook mail.