UiPath Reviews

It's on multiple platforms like Oracle EBS and other IT applications. We have a few of the local government applications that the client uses. We have worked on multiple use cases with all of these applications. All of the client's major work is all through Oracle EBS. We have finance-related use cases. They have Seabridge applications, which are one of the applications that we are automating using UiPath.

Oracle itself has been very helpful when using this solution, thanks to the redundant task they've currently defined. All those are being automated. We mostly use the UiPath Assistant, Video, and Orchestrator. These are the only three products that we use day-in and day-out for our clients.

The ease of building automation using UiPath is great. It technically provides good features in order to develop, automating different kinds of applications using UiPath.

UiPath enables you to implement end-to-end automation, starting with process analysis, then robot building, and finally monitoring automation. It's usually very important. In some regulation cases, redundant cases, it’s been very useful. Instead of avoiding human intervention digitally, we are utilizing the UiPath to build up automation and run those in unattended mode.

If we could use the UiPath Apps feature, it would increase the number of automation and reduce the time it takes to create them. That said, at this time, I do not use this aspect of the solution.

UiPath has reduced human error in some cases. For example, a client has monthly payroll activities, which have to be done for multiple entities and in multiple in order to ensure the reports to be pretty good. It's a huge asset, having these multiple entities. It takes a lot of time for a human to execute the task. Here, automation plays a key role and it creates everything automatically through unattended mode. Of course, when a human is involved, there are chances for errors, such as missing the entities and updating the parameters. All of these things are instead being taken care of by automation. The likelihood of error is removed when the human intervention is.

The product has freed up employee time. It’s likely freed up more than a day, an average of 12 hours at least. That’s 12 hours per day. It allows our employees to focus on more high-value work.

We do use the Apps feature, however, it hasn't really helped reduce any workload. Everything is dependent upon the client's local language, which is Arabic. That is the major reason why we could not implement or utilize much of the Apps. It's not able to recognize Arabic versions properly. That is the challenging area which we are observing currently.

The solution is helpful in terms of speeding up or reducing the cost of digital transformation for our clients, however, the license cost is a little high. We are facing some challenges in the form of money. The license is costly. 

While employees can now focus on more high-value work, I would not go so far as to say it has improved employee satisfaction.

In UiPath, we have multiple products and recently there have been many product videos. There are videos around customization, deployment, et cetera. are all scattered all over. There are different products and different server setups and various other things, however, it is not organized. If it was simplified, it would be much better.

It could be more user-friendly. There are so many offerings and configurations and customizations that make things a bit complicated. Streamlining it would be ideal.

There are a few small things that should be included in UiPath. There are a few, although I can’t remember all. One, for example, is, when we are sending an email, we should be able to set up options and customize it a little bit. At this point, we need to create custom code and then go through APIs if we want to customize. It should be a built-in functionality, however.

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

Stability-wise UiPath is good, however, it releases twice yearly. Therefore it will be a little hard for people to upgrade in-house each and every time. Clients also question why it's necessary every six months to upgrade. It won't be reasonable for the management. Every time when an upgrade is available, we have to complete the regulation for the previous use cases and whatever we already have deployed at production. 

When redeploying, everything is kind of a hectic task. Once in a year is okay, however, multiple releases in a year is a bit much. Clients would not be aware that yearly this many releases are happening and every release will have something more to add, that there are changes. Having to adapt to changes is something that is very difficult to make the client understand.

The solution can scale. 

You can use the application to automate any kind of application or any kind of use case. A few of them require some customization, using other technologies. 

Already we have some 25 bots running in production and a few of them are about to deploy to production and the client is looking for some more use cases. We are looking into a few more use cases that are in the discussion stage as of now. We are increasing our use cases and expanding usage.

The technical support is very helpful, however, there have been cases where we have had some urgent issues and support seems to move at its own pace. They won't rush for you. They don't seem to understand our concerns and they seem to only focus on their own timelines. 

Our SLA expectations are not always matching theirs. Even when we mark something as urgent, still there's a timeline of two to three hours. In that time it'll be hard to hold on.

Our clients did not use a different RPA solution before UiPath.

I do not have any other RPA solution experience beyond UiPath.

I am the solution architect who setups.

I was working on the 2018 version of UiPath. The 2018 and 2019 versions are very easy and very straightforward. There were not many changes or many complications in order to set up or upgrade. However, when it comes to 2020, from 2020 onwards it's very complicated.

Now there is an IAS. There is no connection string update. We cannot update any connection strings, and yet we could in the 2019 version. From 2020 we're not able to do the changes at all unless we go further and do another upgrade or something like that.

Earlier it was straightforward. Maybe there was a little bit of conflict, fine, however, now that it's split into multiple things with a conflict DLL file, orchestrated DLL file, identity server file, then an app setting the adjacent file. That is gathered completely into all of these things, where until and unless you have both end-to-end documentation understanding, you cannot go ahead and do anything.

On top of that, there is the SSL certificate. Until 2019 we didn't require each and every robot or a development machine to have the same SSL certificate. Now, we have to export and import to all the machines and add the user's perspective.

From the licensing perspective, licenses were straight, and there was no migration required for the license to be utilized in any of the versions. From 2020, there is a license migration required from the UiPath end. We now need to contact UiPath for that in order to get this migration done.

All of these changes, as well as the identity server database creation, everything has a kind of impact on the ease of deployment.

Upgrading doesn't take much time, however, users deploying the solution should have a ton of knowledge about each one of the steps. They need to remember everything in order to perform the upgrade or else something might be missed. Even if you miss one step you will have to spend hours and hours in order to rectify that.

For the 2020 version, for the initial deployment, I did not actually do it from scratch. I just upgraded. That said, if a user wanted to do it, I would estimate it takes more than a day to complete.

The implementation strategy depends upon the requirements of the client. For example, if it is on-premises versus if it is on cloud and/or if the client is looking for Elasticsearch or Insights or test automation, et cetera. All of these things will be dependent on the other. If you ask for Insights, you need to have an extra server setup for that. The same thing follows with the test automation and SQL database. What we call roles and responsibilities also will be dependent.

The unattended licenses are a little costly. That's the challenging part for us. That said, with the continuous support to the client, as we are increasing the use cases, it will lessen the cost probably by the middle of next year. At least, that’s what we are hoping for. We hope to see an ROI then.

The license cost is a little high. Unattended modes are really costly. If it's not as costly, then we could propose and purchase the licenses. Of course, we get discounts from UiPath, however, just for 10 bots, not even 10, if we load 5 to 10 unattended bots within the production orchestrator with the three development licenses, we have to pay for them twice. I'm not sure how much it is exactly in terms of the dollars, however.

My company does not have a business relationship with UiPath.

We do not use UiPath in a contact center environment.

We use completely unattended automation. 

We do not use attended automation at this time, or AI, although we are aware those are options. We're looking forward to AI and it is part of the reason we recently upgraded to the 2020.10 version.

It's one of the best tools where you can work for automation. If you have more redundant work, then it is very helpful.

Except for this upgrade and installation initial steps, apart from that, the solution is pretty easy to use.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I have worked on two UiPath use cases. The first use case is for the IT Infrastructure team for submitting server requests. They receive a request from a third-party portal through email, and then my bot reads the email and fills in the details in the company portal.

The second use case is the data extraction from Word documents. The team receives Word documents with some important contract information. I extract those paragraphs and put them in the CSV format given by the customer.

We are using UiPath Studio 2020.10.2, and the Orchestrator version is 2019.

I heard about UiPath RPA in December 2019, and I went to the UiPath Academy website and completed their learning plans. Till March 2020, there was free certification, and I completed the free certification and kept on practicing. I showcased my skills to the management in my company, and I got into RPA projects. The certification has helped me in getting good projects. It has also helped me with my work for the use cases. My position is now better as compared to the previous years, and my work is also good. 

They provide end-to-end solutions. They have UiPath Studio for the development, and they have Orchestrator for package deployment. We can also monitor the performance and execution in Orchestrator. All these are helping us in managing end-to-end automation.

All UI automation activities in UiPath Studio and REFramework are useful. UiPath Orchestrator is also valuable. These features help me a lot in my projects. 

UiPath Studio's UI automation activities help me in easily developing automation. It is difficult for RPA developers to write complex code because no one knows everything about all automation areas. For UI automation, it is not mandatory for a developer to know how to write the code for the element on the screen that needs to be clicked or typed into. The UI automation packages of UiPath provide built-in activities, and developers can directly drag and drop and indicate the element on the screen that needs to be clicked or typed into. 

REFramework is a template using which we can prepare quality workflows for the transactional processes. It has very good error handling, retry, and logging mechanisms.

We can monitor robots in Orchestrator. We can check logs, monitor the performance of each robot, and divide robots into different environments. These features are very helpful for me in managing my work. If I have two or three robots on a set of machines and I want to define my process only for these robots, I can add that process into the environment. My process will be executed only on those robots. This is a good functionality.

For every transaction, there is the queue functionality in Orchestrator. I can go to a queue and add each transaction item to the queue. For every transaction, I can check the logs. I can also check their logs based on the jobs executed. We also have triggers, so we can schedule our jobs with the help of triggers. These features are helping me a lot in managing the performance of my robot and understanding how my robot is performing.

They have UiPath Forum where I can ask any questions. Many UiPath Most Valuable Professionals are on that forum, and they help us a lot. We get quick replies. If anyone is having any challenges, they post their challenges on the UiPath Forum. I can go through them, and if they are already solved, I gain knowledge by reading those solutions. If not, I try to answer them. In addition to gaining the knowledge, I'm getting some visibility in the UiPath Forum. All these things have really helped me a lot in increasing my technical level and expertise and getting good work.

UiPath Studio supports three types of workflows: sequence, flowchart, and state machine. Flowchart and state machine are good. Sequences are also good, and they're for linear workflows. However, in a sequence, as we keep on dragging and dropping the reusable components, the size of the screen increases. If we drag and drop the conditional or looping activities on the site, the screen size increases in length and breadth, and it becomes too complex for a developer to navigate between activities. 

All programming languages, such as C, Java, Python, or Visual Basic, have script-level support. So, we can reuse their functions because they support scripting. For example, if we want to use any reusable components, Python has modules, and there is a way to import packages. For complex automations, if we can write a script, it makes it easy to manage and know the line on which we are getting a syntax error or a runtime error and how is the structure. If I want to modify the logic, it makes it easier to know in which block I need to make the changes. So, it is easy to navigate in the program. Instead of the drag-and-drop blocks, UiPath should have support for scripts such as VBScript and PowerShell. It should support scripting even for complex automation.

The user interface for logging should be improved in Orchestrator. Currently, the logs in Orchestrator show how many hours ago the execution is completed, but it doesn't say how much time it took for a particular execution to complete. It just gives you a rough idea that it started three hours or one hour ago. It doesn't tell you exactly when a particular execution started, and at what time, it stopped. To get a clear idea, I need to click one more button and go to the details of the log. I need to check the start time of the first log and the end time of the last log in the same job, and then I need to calculate the difference to know the exact time it took for completing the job. Instead of doing all that, there should be a column that gives me the exact amount of time in minutes and seconds. It will help me in understanding how much time each execution took and what I should do to improve the speed of the execution.

In my current project, there are no intelligent automation requirements, but I have learned it recently. Just today, I completed the UiPath AI Center course. I also have some basic knowledge of machine learning. They're giving us options to use the out-of-the-box models developed by UiPath and their third-party vendors. With our internal data science, we can also develop our models, integrate them through UiPath AI Center, and deploy them. They're giving us an option to use them as a part of our RPA workflows with the help of the UiPath Studio activity called ML Skill. So, it becomes very easy for RPA developers to integrate machine learning models into their automation workflows, which is very nice, but I feel there should be some more improvement. They should give more visibility into how much time a model takes to finish the training and on how many algorithms it is running. They should also give visibility into which algorithm is best suited for my requirement and which algorithm is giving the best results for my requirement. If they can also give such insights in the same UiPath AI Center, it will help me in picking up the correct model and algorithm for my requirements.

When it comes to intelligent automation, machines use machine learning. No machine learning model can reach 100% accuracy or give 100% accurate output, which is a limitation. However, there is a possibility to increase the accuracy by tuning the parameters. So, UiPath should give more visibility into their models, how the pipeline is running in the AI center, and which factors can improve the accuracy of my model. Such insights will be useful for me in improving the accuracy of my intelligent automation.

In December 2019, I started learning UiPath, and I became an RPA developer in November 2020.

Until now, I have seen good uptime. There were no disruptions in data. I've seen the services running properly 99% of the time. Their logging mechanism, job schedules are also running properly in Orchestrator. So, it is a stable environment.

We're getting good support from UiPath. I would rate them 75 out of 100. Most of the time, I get fast and good replies from the support team. Sometimes, I receive late replies, or they don't understand the question properly, and I need to explain multiple times, but they are mostly good. 

I have worked on different IT process automation tools in the past. Their support did not respond as fast as UiPath's support, and they put the tickets in the suspended mode for a long time. They also didn't understand the question a lot of times and took too much time to analyze the issue. 

I also have the advantage of talking to my Infra team because we've deployed it on-premise. They can act as the first level of support and check if there is anything wrong with the on-premise server. If it is related to UiPath functionality, then we raise a ticket with UiPath support.

It was already set up when I moved to this team. I was working in IT process automation, and I moved to the UiPath development team. The setup and licenses of UiPath Orchestrator are managed by our Infra team members. They provided me with the licenses and links to the UiPath Orchestrator. So, I make use of the resources already deployed by my team. I just build and publish the packages to UiPath Orchestrator.

I have not deployed anything in the live environment, so I cannot comment about the return on investment. I've seen my colleagues deploying it, and with the help of data automation use cases, they have reduced around 10 hours per month for each support team. For my use case, we will be able to reduce at least one or two FTE for the support team when it goes live. I'm able to predict this because I have developed and tested many test cases for my use cases.

I only know about the community version. They give us two robots as a part of the community version, and they are enough for my practice and personal automations. For the office work, my Infra team checks the licenses needed for a particular use case, and my management team manages the pricing and licenses. 

Nine times out of ten, I would recommend others to use UiPath. I have also worked on other IT process automation tools, and none of them provides the functionality, support, and community like UiPath. I had conducted a survey on LinkedIn and asked about the RPA tool that people preferred. I got 60% of the votes for UiPath.

From the development perspective, I've seen a lot of improvement in the UiPath services in the last one year. They're giving more out-of-the-box models for the AI Center, and they are also improving their courses. They are also introducing new functionalities such as the orchestration processes in which you can use persistent activities, and your robot can wait for the human task to finish, and then it can continue its job. If they make any enhancements required for our current automation, we will make use of new UiPath functionalities to enhance our automation.

They have released two new versions of their certifications. One is UiPath Associate Certification, and the other one is UiPath RPA Developer Advanced Certification. I have completed the Associate certification. For these certifications, we have learning plans. There is recommended training, and everything is given on the UiPath Certification Program website. We have the option to check their recommended training and do the practices. They also guide us about how to book the exam from the Pearson website. Going through the recommended training and doing the Associate certification has increased my credibility. I've gained more trust in the company. It has changed my career. So, UiPath has played a prominent role in my career.

It can reduce errors by 100% because a machine can give 100% accuracy and work faster than humans. Just like all RPA tools, UiPath can provide 100% automation accuracy for rule-based automation. You also get better speed because machines are faster than humans. When it comes to intelligent automation, machines use machine learning, so there is a limitation. No machine learning model can reach 100% accuracy in automation.

I would rate UiPath an eight out of 10. 

I started my RPA journey as a developer, and I first heard about UiPath as a low-code, drag-and-drop automation platform. Back then, it was very much in the beginning stages of its development. Ever since then, I've seen it evolve quite fast. I would say even faster than other RPA platforms that I've used, in just a few years.

Thinking back to when I first started using it, there are many new features and updates and it's my preferred platform for RPA.

We primarily used unattended automation, where you deploy the bots to work autonomously. This is unattended, end-to-end automation with no human in the loop, other than providing the inputs or checking the outputs.

We have several use cases, but our main one is reducing manual work. The processes that require a lot of manual input and have a lot of human error are the focus. That could be, for instance, processes that have to do with invoicing, billing, reporting, and coding, which require a lot of man-hours, are very reliant on a human being available, and are time-sensitive. Those are the ones that are on the top list to be automated.

Beyond that, I can't specifically talk about the processes that we've automated.

UiPath helps to implement end-to-end automation, although the discovery of processes, gathering requirements, and creating the design, all happen outside of UiPath. But the development, which is developing the bots, then testing and then deploying them, does happen end-to-end within UiPath.

The end-to-end development capability is important, but this is because every tool offers this and it is expected. That said, there is definitely room for improvement in that end-to-end should include process discovery. It is end-to-end, but those ends can extend further than what it currently is. In that sense, it's no different than other RPA tools.

Another way that UiPath improves the way our organization functions is that the robots can run 24/7. If you think about a human workforce, they work eight hours a day, they take days off, they get sick, they leave, and they take knowledge with them once they leave the company. But, the robots can be run non-stop 24/7, and each process can be scaled up. The same process can be run by one bot, or it can be run by 10 or 100 bots. This means that there's a lot more flexibility that the bots bring, especially for high-volume processes that perhaps even have some peaks, such as an end-of-month rush to produce invoices or meet a deadline or an end-of-financial-year crunch.

These robots have an easier time addressing and variability when it comes to volume. They really create a lot more scalability to where businesses can grow and know that they can meet the demands of the future. So, they're a lot more future-proof, whereas people are harder to rely on.

Speaking from a business perspective, it's the FTE savings. A company obviously needs to spend money on UiPath licenses and development costs, but those costs are oftentimes lower than the cost of that FTE, the full-time employee, whose work is getting automated. If you purely just think about the financial benefits, it's the lower staffing costs.

There is also the ability to free up people. This means that even if people aren't replaced and their salary isn't saved, what they can do is pivot their focus to, for instance, be a lot more customer-facing or do a lot more strategic or creative tasks that perhaps get pushed to the side because there's not a lot of time allocated towards performing them. Now, FTEs have a lot more capacity to contribute and perform tasks that still to this day cannot be automated, like creative thinking, complex decision-making on the spot, strategy, and just human interaction.

In the beginning, employees meet automation with a critical eye. They're thinking, "Well, what's going on? Why are these robots coming in? Are we going to work alongside them? How is this going to work?" But to be honest, in the end, there are winners and losers. What I mean by that is that some jobs are replaced, and that's just simply because of that FTE saving that is usually the driver to justify the cost of development. But on the flip-side, the employees that do stay and do work alongside the bots are usually a lot happier because they have to juggle a lot fewer things.

The robots are there to make people feel like people and not like robots, where they just do the same thing over and over and don't enjoy their job or don't enjoy what they do. A robot takes that away and helps people enjoy their work a lot more because they can do non-repetitive tasks. They can be a lot more customer-facing and perhaps build stronger relationships with their customers, know them better, and have more time available to work on other projects or work on other things that they may never have had the time to do.

In our organization, the robots work on multiple projects. The amount of employee time that is freed up depends on the project and what you are automating, but a pretty good estimate would be a 20% to 40% savings.

With respect to the reduction of problems related to human error, the fact of the matter is that some employees, whether you like it or not, are more error-prone. By automating a process, we were able to standardize it, and therefore, identify the cause of the human error and remove it by replacing the process with a robot that makes a more reliable judgment in terms of action. It is literally just an if-else statement. It's a lot easier to quantify and therefore it's a lot easier to evaluate, and therefore the result is a lot more reliable. Whereas with an employee, let's say the output of their work is a lot more unreliable simply because they could be working on 10 different things on the same day. There could be a deadline approaching, and the quality of work fluctuates with an employee because of it.

With a robot, you will notice that over time, in fact, the quality improves, and that's just the basic truth of RPA. It doesn't happen automatically, and it does require work. It happens because you see the results of the automation and you see areas for improvement, ultimately leading you to make adjustments. You iterate on the RPA solution and make it better over time.

Although it does not improve automatically, through a conscious effort you can be a lot more confident in the output and then be able to see unbiased results at the end of the day. Part of these results is your exception rates, which can be errors. It can be failures, whether technical in nature or decision-making business rule types of errors. Then, you can adjust your process to where it can positively improve that exception rate, and just iterate on that to where it becomes acceptable. Moreover, it's quite stable, which is not the case with the human workforce.

The automation cloud Orchestrator has its benefits and negative sides. The benefit is the fact that it's web-based. A person who has the login credentials can access it without the necessity to have something installed. The development and the monitoring of the bots are separated in UiPath, where the development happens in the Studio and the monitoring happens in the Orchestrator.

In other tools like Blue Prism, it happens in the same place. I've used both, and the Orchestrator is nice. It has a very nice UI, it's user-friendly, it has a lot of features, and I find it quite easy to use. For example, you can see all of the machines, you can see the robots, and you can schedule them. If the business wants to see a lot more across the output of the Work Queue, they can have that visibility from Orchestrator, which is great.

The downside of Orchestrator is the package deployment, which is perhaps another minus of UiPath in general. The deployment of a new package does not take a long time, but there are a lot of steps. It's not an intuitive process. If you have to release a lot of packages, which does occur, especially in the early stage of deployment, when you are releasing hotfixes, or when something goes wrong and you need to redeploy a fix really quickly to minimize business impact, it does slow you down.

I wish it would be just one or two clicks, rather than the whole importing or exporting and connecting to the desktop application and everything that accompanies it. I wish it were a lot easier. Again, it has its upsides but it's not perfect.

The best feature in UiPath is their robotic enterprise framework because that is an inbuilt processing framework for utilizing their work queues. It's plug-and-play, and already pre-built to where you don't have to start from scratch. It's enterprise-grade and ready to be used. All you need to do is populate your dispatcher, create a queue, create a performer, and you're good to go.

The highest benefit of it is that it's just there, ready to use, and you don't need to start from a blank screen. You don't have to figure out, for example, how to create an environment where the robots can check if there's anything in the queue to be worked on. The framework is already there. The other tools that I've used, like Blue Prism, don't have that built-in quite as well.

My perspective and overview are from that of a developer, and I find that the recorder feature is really good. This is because UiPath lets you record your actions on the screen. So, if you want to interact with a web-based interface, for example, then you have UiPath record your actions and then build the activities that you would need in order to replicate those actions through the robot. It makes it a lot better and although it's not perfect and it does need to be reviewed and adjusted, it speeds up development quite a bit. This is especially true when it's basic back development like populating fields and clicking buttons and navigating on a web.

Compared to other RPA tools that I have used, something that stands out to me in UiPath is that it has a very extensive library of activities. Those activities are easy to search for and use.

When you are writing code, there is a feature called IntelliSense, which autocompletes your code. More specifically, when you're typing code, if you're starting to type the name of a variable, it will show you all of the variables available and you can just click them. It's very interactive and it's reminiscent of the Microsoft Visual Studio environment, both from the UI perspective and the coding perspective. This means that developers that are familiar with Visual Studio will probably feel right at home using UiPath. It's very developer-friendly and it's geared towards appealing to existing developers.

The UiPath Academy courses definitely help in the process of bringing employees up to speed. The Academy is the go-to place for UiPath learning and I think that other RPA tools are copying this model of disseminating knowledge, being a lot more open with training, making it freely available, and providing an online classroom. These are things that UiPath has always done, and it certainly helps new developers get upskilled in RPA, and specifically with UiPath.

When it comes to ease of use, UiPath is intuitive insofar as the basic features have a low learning curve. However, if you want to take full advantage of what UiPath can do, and if organizations want to create more sophisticated automation solutions, it is more difficult. For instance, automations involving back-end access, maybe writing directly to databases such as SQL or using API, that's a steep learning curve. In fact, I think the learning curve is exponential.

If you just want to make a robot that sends an email, that's really easy to do. But, if you really want tangible benefits, like if you really want something that solves a business problem, it is a huge learning curve and it takes a while to master. Obviously, it does have that low-code requirement, but I would say that's only for entry automation projects, like proof-of-concept or something along those lines. For something that really solves a business problem, you would need code, because that just makes it a lot more robust and a lot more powerful if you can custom-code certain steps of the process.

Features for process discovery would improve the end-to-end development capabilities.

From a developer's point of view, my biggest struggle with UiPath is debugging. The debug mode in UiPath feels clunky and it is a sore spot. It feels it's hard to control the flow of the process. There are a lot of internal errors and it's not intuitive. In general, debugging is not a good experience and I don't enjoy doing it. In contrast, Blue Prism has better debugging capabilities.

Blue Prism is a little more dynamic; you can adjust variables, you can jump around the flow, and it's easier to control. With UiPath, it's a little bit of a nightmare. It becomes harder to debug the bigger your automation is, because it's quite unpredictable, and it's quite unstable. Definitely, if debugging was improved, I would say UiPath would get 11 out of 10.

Something that I noticed recently is that they have moved to paid certification for developers, whereas it used to have free certification. This is a little bit outside of the platform itself but the pain point here from my perspective is that there is a barrier to entry for new RPA developers, or ones that want to renew their certification. It has become a lot harder and that used to be a differentiator for UiPath. It had a very strong online learning offering and it offered no-charge recertification on top. This is now very similar to what other tools are doing and I see that as a negative.

My first introduction to UiPath was in early 2018 or late 2017.

The robots could be a lot more stable, which is another area for improvement. The stability issue with UiPath is a prominent one, especially in comparison to other tools like Blue Prism. I feel that there are a lot of errors that are caused by the UiPath framework, as opposed to the robot design. Sometimes it's just very unreliable and crashes unexpectedly, which creates serious issues in terms of reliability. In early deployment, it always happens that it's very late nights, and there's a lot of babysitting processes. The robots need it because you never know what's going to crash.

In comparison with other RPA tools, it is average when it comes to reliability. I would rate other tools a little bit easier to manage expectations as to what you can reasonably expect to go wrong, and what you can reasonably expect to break. With UiPath, our developers, even our experienced ones, oftentimes get errors that we've never seen in our lifetime. This is partly due to the flexibility of UiPath, with it being so easy to adapt to all types of applications and all types of environments and it being so malleable. It is one of the most versatile tools; it's industry agnostic, platform-agnostic, and tool-agnostic, but that flexibility creates a lot more room for error in the code. It means that a lot more things can break or interfere with each other, compared to other platforms that are perhaps more niche and more targeted in what they're actually trying to solve.

UiPath is definitely scalable. It is modular, where you build a workflow and that can be reused across multiple robots or multiple processes. Those processes can then be run by one, two, three, five, and 100 bots, provided that they can work concurrently in the same environment, performing the same process. It's wonderful and the scalability is uncapped. If you have licenses, then you can use them, which is great.

The only limits are how many licenses are you willing to buy, and the inherent limits of your own infrastructure and your own process. It comes down to how many robots can realistically work concurrently in the same infrastructure and in the same network without breaking it.

We have approximately 20 developers who use UiPath. We have business users, but it is difficult for me to say how many there are.

I have been in contact with technical support, and I have experienced submitting a support ticket to them. I even got on a call with them and they were very helpful. We had been having issues with automating a platform and we wanted to get their specific insight as to what was going wrong. It had to do with UiPath not being able to extract selectors from that specific interface.

I was really surprised because they spent the time to not only address my ticket and answer my questions, but also to allocate time to schedule a meeting, and really look into the platform via screen share. I was sharing the screen with them and showing them what was happening, and they really looked into it and gave it a lot of attention.

I understand they get a lot of tickets, and I really felt they provided a good answer. They responded really fast, I would say within 24 hours, and we began exchanging details through a back and forth conversation.

They provided me with the outcome that I was happy with. It was a very good experience.

In addition to UiPath, we used Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. UiPath is king here, and I rarely hear anything about the other two. I would estimate that we use UiPath 95% of the time, perhaps even 99%.

The alternative to UiPath that I am more familiar with is Blue Prism. From my perspective, UiPath is geared towards developers. The audience towards which it's skewed is the developer or the technical person. Blue Prism is geared more towards business people. It's geared towards converting business people, including SMEs and subject matter experts that know the process well, into developers. You will find that the language that each program uses is one that's geared towards the target market. Consequently, UiPath uses a lot of developer language and developer concepts.

For example, UiPath works similarly to the Visual Studio Environment. Blue Prism, on the other hand, uses a lot of flowcharting visuals, as well as the language that it uses for the same concept. It's going to use a definition that's more from a business process flowcharting realm. Recently, both platforms are converging onto each other and I feel like they're becoming more and more similar, but they still have a few things that are different.

One thing that stands out for me is that Blue Prism has wonderful debugging. It's a lot better than UiPath, and it's an all-in-one tool where the monitoring and the building of the robots happen in one application. The deployment is also really easy.

Blue Prism also offers online learning, which is great. They didn't use to have that offering, and I think that they got a lot of inspiration from UiPath. Their online courses have been great because previously when I was learning RPA, I had to use YouTube. Now, they have a whole Blue Prism university, which is amazing.

Blue Prism has inbuilt version control and a lot of other great features. They have a heavy emphasis on security and encryption, which UiPath perhaps needs to improve on. Companies such as banks, insurance agencies, and finance agencies are a lot more interested in Blue Prism because of its very strong security protocols. The encryption offering is a key requirement for companies that work with a lot of sensitive personal data.

I have never been involved in the initial setup, although my understanding is that it's quite a journey.

The areas of the organization with the most ROI from UiPath are operations, finance, HR, and sales. Those are the key departments, although it's across every organization because those departments have a lot of manual work-intensive processes that are the first contenders for automation.

We have a yearly licensing model that gives us access to the development and production environments. The cost of licensing is expensive.

Part of automation is the analysis and optimization of processes because the analysis phase is a by-product of wanting to automate a task. If you want to automate something, you have to break it down into parts and really look at it and think, "How can I reduce this into a series of business rules, a series of decisions, or series of steps?" It's an exercise of process optimization in and of itself because a good practice in automation is to not just take what it is and automate it, but to think, "Does what is currently in place actually work? How can it be improved? How can it be streamlined? How can it be done in fewer steps?" It's a good chance to practice some process review, improvement, and transformation.

The idea is to make it optimal because the current process usually has unquestioned practices that maybe haven't been reviewed for a very long time. A lot of businesses say, "We've always done it this way," and they've never thought to revisit the approach. RPA gives you an opportunity to think about whether what you've always been doing will work when it's being done by a robot. Most often, the processes get streamlined through the requirements gathering phase, understanding the as-is, and then a key part of that is doing the process design, which is the to-be vision.

During that time, processes go through a few design iterations where they are optimized and streamlined because we want the robots to be as efficient as possible. This means performing as few steps as possible without sacrificing value and efficiency. It is important because any inefficiencies in a robot are going to scale with the number of times you're going to run that process. If you run a process a thousand times, and let's say there exists inefficiency that results in an extra minute being used, that could be shed if you were to review and optimize that process.

Ultimately, optimization is an important exercise because the benefits include a further capacity to run more automated processes, and less time is taken up by inefficient steps.

Something to be aware of is that updates to the platform have to be managed because any update could impact the performance of a bot that was built with an earlier version. To avoid having a newer version impact the performance of something that was built previously, all of the updates need to go through a due diligence process.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from UiPath is surprising; not everything needs to be automated. It feels weird to say it because thinking, "Well, I have this platform, I have these bots, why not just automate absolutely everything?", but the truth is that there are things that can be streamlined outside of RPAs. Also, some processes can be automated through other means. Consider the very simple example of sending automated emails, or sorting out your inbox by putting the right email in the right folder, those types of things can be done with email rules rather than RPA.

If a platform already has some sort of inbuilt automation, whether that's a social media platform, email platform, networking platform, or any other type of platform, it's always better to explore that first before looking to solve that problem with RPA. There are times when an Excel Macro or an email rule will be a lot faster and a lot more cost-efficient. RPA should be directed towards big-ticket items, big problems, and large volumes to where no existing solution would provide the same level of value.

My advice for anybody who is considering UiPath is to try it out for themselves. The most beautiful thing is when companies take the leap to have a very small citizen developer team, where they upskill a few technically-minded people with free courses and try to build a small proof of concept to see if RPA is the right path for them. I really encourage that sort of curiosity and experimentation because all of the resources are out there and anybody can learn, as long as they're driven and passionate and curious about automation. I would really encourage people just to give it a try and see what comes out of it.

In our organization, UiPath is the number one RPA tool. Being close to the industry as a developer, and I do feel like it's the preferred tool, at least where I'm based in Australia. It is definitely the preferred RPA solution on the market. Our usage is definitely going to increase in the future. I feel like the future is bright for UiPath. That said, it isn't perfect.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're mainly focused on finance for the time being so we've used UiPath for invoice processing and e-billing reconciliation. It makes sure that all of our converting information matches within our client databases. We've done a couple of solutions that track budget spend for certain clients, making sure that if the budget overruns or comes close to overrunning, then someone gets notified. If we get a new client or if a new legal case is opened, automation can make sure that all that information is then uploaded into our database. 

We've done a couple of smaller automations for the legal teams. These have been fairly basic ones though. There were a couple that download files from an email for them, and then rename them with the correct naming conventions, and saves them into correct drives. 

Another use case is to remove outdated users or information from our databases in line with the GDPR system.

In a general sense, UiPath has helped with data lineage, understanding where a process starts, who it rests with, and where it ends. It has made the process that we have automated a little bit more clear of which parts of the process are necessary, which are the parts that hold up the whole process, and which are the ones that are needlessly complicated.

For starters, it just helps give a bit more of an understanding of our processes once they're automated. Secondly, it's changed the way that we approach problems. We're tied into contracts that we might necessarily not want to be, but because we rely on the solution, we don't have a choice. Whereas, because UiPath is so versatile, we can use that to fill in gaps to take over processes, which otherwise in the past, we thought that only one specific tool could do for us. Now, we feel like we'd be less reliant on these specific tools to do a specific job. 

Third, a lot of teams are starting to understand that things can be automated. Whether it's in finance, HR, or even the legal teams, we started speaking to all the different teams and now they're bringing work to us and they're getting an understanding of things that do need to be done by a person and which don't. People aren't just doing work for the sake of it now. If they think there isn't a point to something and it can be automated, they bring it to us and we automate it. So, it's changed the way that we look at processes and don't just hardheadedly get someone to do it for no reason.

It checks our invoice stage for one of the processes that we do for e-billing. Previously, there wasn't anyone to check the financial data that we have in our systems against our clients and our recipients, and making sure that it all matches up. That process wasn't done at all so a month or two months later, a client would come back to us and say, "Hang on, you billed a strong amount or you've put our billing address wrong" which is obviously a little embarrassing. These things went completely unobserved for months. The client had to chase us, complain, and tell us we needed to fix it. Whereas now, it's more of a proactive approach rather than waiting for clients to come to us and tell us that we've done something wrong. We actually have the automation that can check and then validate those mistakes before they're even a problem and before they're spotted by anyone.

We're still in the early stages but we are starting to reach the point where UiPath is speeding up the cost of our digital transformation.

The digital transformation has made a couple of the lawyers' jobs easier by getting rid of the admin staff. It's freed up time and it makes things easier for everyone.

UiPath has definitely reduced our processing times as well. It really depends on the process but it has sped up. 

It has also decreased our error rates. At the moment we're looking to purchase an orchestration platform. At that point, we'll be able to collect more information about exact numbers and we'll actually have the analytics. 

The ability to use APIs within UiPath is really helpful. The web scraping is really great. It's so easy to use, it's very intuitive, and it's usually pretty consistent. When web pages change you need to update it, but it makes it quick. If you need to do another quick process, it's really easy to get it quickly and set something up. I can just scrape data from a website and save it somewhere.

The ease of building automation depends. UiPath makes things that are fairly simple but looks a little bit tricky in another language really easy. But if you're trying to do something really complicated, then sometimes it can be a little bit more tricky. It depends, sometimes it's really simple for fairly basic automations, I think it's fantastic. But when you want to try and get into the nitty-gritty and try and write your own code and then stick in there, it can sometimes be a bit difficult to use.

The documentation can be a little bit lacking. I think they improved it a little bit last month. Last time I checked, it seemed like they spent a bit of time trying to improve it. Sometimes some of the processes are nicely documented. UiPath offers training, which they provide on their website. They teach you how to use it, but for some processes, it just seems like the documentation isn't really there. It makes it a little bit difficult when you're using a specific process from the first time. 

If you're trying to invoke a method in UiPath, if you're trying to write a C# in there directly,  or if you need to do something which can't really be done in UiPath, but it can be done in C# or Python or something else, sometimes it's not that intuitive. It can be a little bit more complicated than it needs to be. I think that integration with other languages could be a little bit better.

We have been using UiPath permanently for around eight months, but we've been using it in-house for about a year before that.

UiPath itself is very stable because it interacts with so many different applications. I noticed in the past, at times, when using it with browsers, for example, using it with Google Chrome or Firefox, occasionally Chrome or Firefox will update and UiPath can take sometimes a week or two to update with it. For that week, you're able to use any solution that involves Google Chrome or Firefox, because it's waiting for that update. I've seen that happen with a couple of different applications, not as much recently. UiPath itself is very stable because it can interact with anything. If anything is updated and UiPath doesn't have time to update drivers to match that, sometimes you can get left a little bit stuck.

It's not really easy when you're using orchestrator to scale up and create a server, add a new bot, get a new license, and get it running. 

At the moment, it's just me using UiPath. I'm a developer and the architect for the solution as well. But we're planning to expand the team next year. 

We have a couple of processes that are running constantly, so I think we're using it as much as we can, and as much as our licenses allow. We're at a point now where we need an orchestrator to keep track and run everything at the same time. We're in the process now of purchasing that. I'll see where we're moving to, to expand quite far beyond that after we've got it. We're just at the point of ramping up.

I've sent a couple of requests to support when we needed licenses and when we changed to a different computer or a different user, and they got back to us really quickly and solved it within a day or so. I've been pretty happy with UiPath so far. I think every time I've sent a request to them, it's been resolved pretty quickly, and even if they couldn't resolve it super quick, the response times are usually within 24 hours or so, which is really good. I can't remember a time where we've been stuck in the dark with them.

I've used Automation Anywhere, but I haven't really used it within my work.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I implemented UiPath for a couple of years before I came to my current company. It was quite easy, but even the first time it's always been quite easy and quite simple to implement.

The initial setup only took a couple of days to get it all installed properly and cleared with IT. In terms of getting the first process up and running, it took about a week or two because we already had a couple of processes that were available. That's just a case of tweaking them, making sure they're all okay, and then just getting them set up and getting more packaged up.

Our initial strategy was mainly to focus on finance and to try and reduce the outsourced headcount with a couple of the finance teams. We outsource a lot of our work to a couple of other companies and we want to reduce the cost of that, so I automate it in-house. Our other strategy was to try and free up as much time for our lawyers as possible to make sure they weren't bogged down with work. It gives them more time to focus on the clients and work up better relationships with them.

We're still looking at the process that we've automated and seeing how much time and money we're saving with this crisis, but we don't have that information at the moment.

The pricing is pretty fair. Sometimes the pricing can be a little bit strange. There are different prices if it's for a specific user, a specific PC or if it's an attended bot or unattended bot. The price can be quite different, but I think when you talk to UiPath or when you look at the pricing sheets, there's not always a justification of why a certain license is more expensive than another. 

Licenses are more expensive than another but I wonder why there's such a big difference, why attended is four times more expensive, and that sort of thing. In terms of the orchestrator, I think it was a bit too much. It used to cost about 20,000 pounds a year. Now, they are ramping up costs. If you get an orchestrator but with just a few blocks, it's cheaper and then you can add up more parts to the orchestrator. So the cost goes up, which I think is better.

Definitely to try and get as many teams involved as possible to open up the conversation about RPA within the business. It works best when you've got lots of teams who have an understanding of RPA and how it works. They can come to you with their potential projects and you can filter through them and see which ones are going to be the most helpful.

It's hard if no one else in the business really knows RPA or how it works, or if there's a bit of a wall there. It's important to introduce RPA to as many different teams as possible and to encourage people to get involved, think about the processes that they do in it, and try to identify what can be helpful.

It's important to keep RPA close to the applications and the IT teams because if you're using RPA or UiPath you're going to need to be able to be speaking to your team who need permissions or admin privileges, or you need apps to be updated. It's important if you're going to put it in, have it as close to apps and development as possible.

It's a case of understanding that it's not a case of trying to get everything automated that you possibly can. The goal shouldn't just be to automate everything. If you've got a process and you can do 99% of it automated but you can't automate the last 1%, you can but it's going to be really fairly inefficient. Understand that it's fine for a process to have some bits that are automated, some of which are done by a person. The hybrid workforce, rather than going into the strategy of just automating everything is ideal. I've learned that trying to find that balance and getting that communication between the two is good.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten. 

The primary use case is invoicing and billing. The first thing that we used it for was some content migration from one video hosting provider to another. We later on moved to invoicing and billing, which included time sheets, management, and feeding data into our accounting system.

The features that we use the most for our use case include reading PDFs, email integration, and web and desktop automation talking to other desktop software.

We have generally found it easy to use, but we also develop some extensions. We are actually a software development shop, so we have developed extensions to the core UiPath platform. They have made it pretty easy to do that.

UiPath could use more OCR use cases to help with those features.

I would like to see higher end AI type features natively in UiPath. Some native integration over time would help.

We found it to be quite stable.

We have a relatively small use case. Most people have entered the market on a small scale. The maturity will come in, maybe over this year, as people start to scale up. 

I expect some issues will surface when it starts scaling up. However, that happens with any software. 

The eagerness of UiPath engineers and their salespeople to help us along the process has helped us align ourselves more with UiPath.

Support is good, helpful, and eager to help.

The UiPath Academy is great. It was one of the reasons which made us choose the tool, and align ourselves with it. It was easy to get the software, and train on it. If you're doing professional work, you don't want to have untrained people work on it. This will not lead to success.

As a software development shop, we value training quite a lot. They made it easy to help our developers come up to speed with the software and get certified.

The initial setup is quite easy. We have worked with some other RPA tools, but they took us quite awhile to get setup. With UiPath, it was relatively easier to get started.

We have seen ROI by it saving some hours for us. We are a small company. We use the tool mostly because we want to learn about the software. We also save some hours, but we do it to learn and help other customers who are doing it at much higher volumes. The savings for us is relatively lesser than the savings for a larger customer.

ROI is a bit tricky. Customers need to implement simpler use cases: Get ROI from the tool, learn it, and re-implement it. This is just the nature of how RPA works. I see a lot of opportunities for it.

When customers start scaling up their use of RPA and have learnt how to use it, that is when the real ROI will start trickling in. When you start off, it will take some effort to get it right. Once you developed some maturity with the process, and you're scaling up a lot of use cases, and you have one bot doing a lot of different things and being able to share a lot of processes with a few bots, that's when you will start seeing good ROI.

This tool gives opportunities for people to be productive in other areas, which is hard to measure sometimes. The first step is to get them there, then determine where you can go from there. ROI is a very long term thing. The product lets people focus their skills on what they are good at, which is a type of ROI.

UiPath made it easy to learn their software. When we looked at a variety of RPA tools initially, UiPath was the easiest to get started with. It has good Academy content and an open platform, which is easy to download and start using (the Community Edition).

We have been looking at other RPA solutions, but we like UiPath quite a lot.

The primary use case is to have a platform which allows us to scale rapidly without adding a lot of human labor. We are looking to go global without being dependent on recruiting heavily on back office functions.

We combine this RPA solution with predictive analytics. We are in the hairdressing industry, so we predict the amount of haircuts that we get every month in advance. Based on that prediction, we set up our work shifts based on it. We do that predictably, then we use UiPath RPA to fill in the work schedules for each employee in advance and measure it, since it is really important for us to get an accurate number of shifts based on predictive analytics.

It is fairly easy to use. We are using it with a lot of integrations with separate tools to get the flow of data going.

Valuable features include rapid development and the scale of solution. The most valuable feature would be accuracy: The ability to perform the same job accurately and consistently.

We use UiPath only in virtual environments. If it came out of the box like a software as a service, it would be a whole lot better, especially in our case. All our internal systems are cloud-based systems, so we have no dependencies or legacies in terms of installed software in any way. We could be completely in the cloud all the way through.

I would like to see direct integration with the Google BigQuery platform. 

I would also like an Orchestrator self-service desk.

The stability is as good as the developer makes it.

The scalability looks pretty solid. We haven't been working with it too long, or long enough to see it really scale yet. 

Orchestrator should have better scalability with a better payment model in terms of number of processes that you want to use. Instead, you have one product which covers this size with this fixed price. You're getting a box of options, but you can't really scale it.

We have not really used the support. We did spend a bit of time on the community forum, but that's about it. The community forum is pretty good. This is one thing which differentiates UiPath from the pack: It has a community and access to information.

We did not use a previous solution. We went straight to UiPath right from the get go. 

I have worked with automation before. We saw a rapid gain in terms of automation where we couldn't automate in any other way. 

The initial setup was a bit complex. It could be better, especially with Orchestrator. 

Orchestrator should be a separate solution, straight out. Just sign up and have a heavy solution for it. Instead, we spent a lot of paid consulting hours setting it up on our Google Cloud platform and virtual server in the cloud. That was just wasting money for our organization. It should be its own software as a service. 

We used PwC for the deployment, who was very good.

We've been in production for about two months, and we have seen tremendous ROI. The accuracy of the job was far more valuable than the man-hours spent.

It has helped to eliminate human error by a huge amount.

While it has saved us time, we're a small staff business, so there's not a whole lot of time to save.

Licensing costs are high, but still well within a positive return on investment.

We like the hybrid model, but it would be very costly for us to have one Attended Robot for each person in the organization. Although, it would be nice to have, we don't do many mundane, repetitive tasks in entire our organization. We actually have UiPath to do all the work that we don't do, which means we can think about it differently from the start. If we can consolidate all those tasks on Unattended Robots from the start, then we save on licensing money, which we try to keep as tight as possible.

The main cost driver is developing and maintaining the software. Ensure that you don't spend unnecessary time implementing something you don't know. Get someone who knows it to get it up and running. Let that be the basis of your tech choice. I like UiPath roadmap, and the roadmap of the product should also be very important.

Getting the ROI, which we expected within one month, would be impossible to do with another tool.

We did not look at other solutions. I am managing the system, not developing it. I am a self-service manager for the operations, and I only knew UiPath. Therefore, the cost of implementing something that I didn't know would be higher than the cost of implementing something I did know. Plus, it works for work we need.

The automation technology at our organization is pretty good. We use a set of combination batch/cron jobs for a Google Cloud platform together with some AI automation tools, like Dialogflow, in combination with the RPA tools, like UiPath.

It is a very good product and very much stable. I love working with it. Though, it still has some limitations when it comes to integrations and development. Sometimes, you find yourself in a situation where have to add a bunch of code to make it work faster, or you will be stuck with it dragging and dropping. While this works in most cases, for the 20 percent where you want to add code, it does becomes annoying.

We are currently implementing a solution for a large telephony company to migrate data between systems. This data is fetched from a system A and placed on a system B. Much of UiPath's functions are well used, such as integrations with PDF, OCR, Excel, and a few others. The financial return tends to be large since the robot manages to work 24/7 and with almost zero errors.

UiPath is a simple tool to be used, has a friendly interface and at the same time powerful and useful to automate most repetitive processes. From an academy with training courses that enroll anyone who wants to join the RPA area, teaching from basic to advanced takes around 20 hours. Available features, integrations with other applications, and a large amount of community-made frameworks that are very active are the things that make UiPath more feasible to use or choose from its competitors: Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism.

UiPath will surely win over anyone planning to join the RPA. The tool is friendly, simple to use, very visual, courses are well produced and explained, and certification is free until the end of March.

Despite all the good points, UiPath still leaves a bit to be desired with the documentation. ReFramework, which is an adopted community framework, is too nebulous to be understood and poorly documented and presented in the course, causing us to scour the internet for help. Another downside is that the passage of arguments and the number of native commands is not as vast as one of its competitors.

No, UiPath was the first RPA solution I used.

Despite being an expensive tool, it brings considerable returns.

Ease of use, market leadership, and cost.