UiPath Reviews

I work for a banking company. We use UiPath for tracing and collecting customer's credit information.

We also use it to deploy a bot when clients have specific requests for changes to their information or accounts. We're able to change their service via these requests. We can also remove some processes of manual intervention.

We've deployed bots across various processes. We have been able to remove human intervention for multiple processes and have seen a general improvement in terms of cost-effectiveness.

We used to handle dashboards manually. Now we've turned customers into kind of specialists in that, whenever they want to change something, such as adding debit, or opening/closing accounts, changing addresses, et cetera, they can handle it. They no longer have to push that request through us and have us intervene. They can do it themselves using the bots. 

Previously, nobody could automate the process. The design and implementation allowed clients to handle their own data, for example, for transfers and items like that. We were able to digitize entirely from end to end. Now, the customer doesn't have to come to the bank and they don't need a pen and paper. They just have to log on and fill out the details of their request. Being able to share this new data is important. If there are manual aspects, we can now handle them for the customer. We don't have to have them worry about doing tasks manually.

We can use browsers like Internet Explorer for our automation. However, we've been able to use Excel as well with just a few hiccups in the beginning. UiPath really helped us with this change by disabling some elements at the managerial level. It was a big learning experience for us.

We are able to use codes to do a lot of checking to see that we are getting enough data and that we are able to filter it correctly.

The ease of building a process is pretty good and simplifies things. Normally it takes three to four hours to complete a process. That includes everything, including generating reports and sending the data. There are, of course, multiple steps involved in the process. We've gotten that down to about six minutes. We're able to better focus the work and, at the same time, we're able to use a lot of bots to get things done. 

We can scale the solution well. We've already deployed four more bots for various processes. We're actually able to have good control of each bot. We're able to put things into a proper standard format and then send the information where it needs to go without having to handle the process manually. It would go so much slower without the bots in place without having to go back to the customer. There's no longer a needs to do anything manually here. There was a concern that customers would not be able to manage the process that's automated by the bots, however, in the end, everything was clear and it was easily handled. 

The solution enables us to implement end-to-end automation, starting with process analysis, then robot building, and finally monitoring automation. We're involved from the very beginning to design the process from step one. We're able to test everything out before moving to production and that allows us to make sure everything works. End-to-end coverage is first and foremost. The visibility we have is really powerful. 

We were able to deploy in parts, as we didn't have global production. At first, we didn't know how to manage everything. Once we went live, however, we were able to monitor it all. We could send reports to show what was happening, and if there were any concerns, we could go and directly look at those areas.

The solution helped to minimize our on-premises footprint. I always look for capabilities to deploy from the cloud. It changes as the customer needs to decide how to ultimately deploy. However, the cloud is able to handle anything an on-prem option would. We are able to handle the entire volume using one cloud. Our bots are able to be on the cloud and online. 

Attended automation has helped to scale RPA benefits in our organization by automating department roles and specific processes that require human/robot collaboration. Previously, we were concerned with data loss and not being able to attend to the browser. We were not able to do even the simpler stuff.

We were able to upgrade to an updated version, from 19.4 to 20.4 which had some more UI and automation. We were able to upscale our entire quota. We're able to do workarounds if we need to.

We can speed up our automation processes and automate faster with UiPath.

The automation cloud offering helps to decrease the solution's total cost of ownership by taking care of items such as infrastructure maintenance and updates.

The solution speeds up the cost of digital transformation.

The solution has reduced human error. We've been able to reduce errors and have gotten more quality data instead of just more data. That way, if there is a mistake or something goes wrong, we can check the error against the quality data and resolve issues more effectively.

It has also freed up our employee's time. They can better deliver on big and innovative processes. We used to handle a lot of high volume tasks at the end of the month mostly and that's since tapered off. We'll have to see at the end of this month how much time savings we've accumulated. 

Our employees can now focus on more high-value work. Employee satisfaction is high as well. In a bank, we do have a high volume of transactions every month, and previously, each would have to be checked and verified and balanced by someone manually - even if most would be dismissed as canceled transactions, et cetera. With automation, our employees no longer have to look at everything themselves. They can be wiser about what interventions they have to make every month.

Overall, the solution has reduced the cost of our automation operations. As a developer, I cannot speak to exact amounts, however, as that's handled more by project managers. 

So far, the solution has saved the company costs. We're very customer-focused in our organization. Deploying these kinds of innovative solutions allows us to better serve while offering our customers better services as well. It's become like their personal service manager. We've done this without ballooning costs. 

While the solution speeds up the cost of digital transformation, doing so requires expensive or complex application upgrades or IT app support. You will need IT. That said, I haven't had a chance to explore mine in any detail.

There need to be more warnings for when there are issues within the automation especially when it comes to exceptions. We're not easily made aware of problems. The sooner we understand what the exception is, the sooner we can adjust things.

I've been using the solution going on 25 years now.

For the most part, the solution is stable. We did encounter one problem when we were testing. Apart from that, we did not encounter any issues. 

The solution has helped us to scale. For example, if we have no idea from where to start, but we know the process test and know the application is involved, we're able to start building. We can go and test and try out options without having to put anything into production right away, so we can refine and validate the data.

The solution itself is highly scalable. We have three worker bots running at the same time. Users, however, can scale it up however they want to.

I'm not sure if the company has any plans to increase usage or put more bots into production.

We have a team that lets us know if there are any changes coming up in relation to the infrastructure. If there are any changes that will affect the bots, it will not be done suddenly. We'll be able to ensure nothing is overly affected. 

In terms of technical support, if something is not working as it should, they do need to review it. They do help us with technical validation.

We did not use a different solution before we adopted UiPath.

The initial setup was complex to a certain degree. The documentation was unclear. In the beginning, we weren't really comfortable with the approach or the process. 

There were two types of processes happening at once during the deployment. We did each process twice, and each took two or three hours, so it was about one day to get everything going for each deployment, and then we did a final run-though. Likely, in total, it took us about 12 days or so. 

We tend to have a specific process that we go through for every implementation we do. We'll go through how many bots are needed and what to do. We also do testing for all types of situations. We have a process designer who is involved and assists with the setup.

In terms of maintenance, we don't need anyone to run the operation. We have three to five people that after a month of production, have a good enough understanding to handle any outstanding tasks, whatever they may be. If there are issues, such as, for example, if Internet Explorer is not working, they are able to troubleshoot and manage the solution.

We did not use an integrator or installer to assist in the deployment process.

We have seen an ROI.

I always work to design my solution in such a way that is the most cost-effective.

You do need to pay the full license cost in order to use UiPath, so you need to be strategic to get the most out of it.

Our company handles costs internally as we do not directly deal with a vendor.

We did evaluate other options for data capture before we chose UiPath.

We are customers and end-users.

At this time, we do not use the AI functionality within UiPath. Our solution is not impacted by anything generating artificial intelligence.

The automation speeds up the time to value and we see very quickly how much the solution is able to positively affect the business aspects. It's been really helpful for us overall. The processes have been profitable. 

I'd advise users to really focus on their input and output size. You'll be able to validate your data. It will help you transform your processes. You just need to figure out where you want to simplify and where you want to maximize value.

We've learned how to standardize processes. We've realized how important it is to always try to be very clear when creating automation.

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

Currently, I'm dedicated to working within a finance organization. It develops processes in the scope of five months. I do not use the solution in a contact center environment. I work on projects for shared services.

It's FTE-saving. Since the beginning of this year, I have covered more than four FTEs. That means that for half a year, I saved three FTEs. That's a huge benefit.

The easy development process is very useful for us. I know how to use it, and I'm able to prepare and add to a solution in one or one and half weeks. It depends, of course, on the process, however, largely, if it's a simple process, it could be developed from the beginning very quickly.

It's very important that I can create end-to-end automation using UiPath. Thanks to that, the business is free to do more advanced processes and is not overloaded by less important, repetitive tasks.

I've noticed that UiPath has reduced human error. The first benefit is FTE saving, however, the second is quality of work. Human work, if it's repetitive, it's very often related to human errors. That said, if something is programmed really well and automated it works without the need for human intervention.

I had a problem with one thing and that was exporting activities packages between the test server and the production server. I'm not sure that it's my own issue, or a general problem from the global perspective of UiPath, however, I have a lot of problems with packages, using the test server and production server.

I've used the solution for quite a long time. I started using UiPath at the beginning of 2017. It has been more than four years.

The stability is good. Everything works well and I don't have any production bugs. I only have positive feedback, It works and there are no unexpected errors.

The scalability  depends on the developer. If we have an advanced developer, it is really easy to scale. If someone's preparing, for example, components, it is quite easy. From UiPath's perspective, it is easy to scale, however, that said, everything depends on the person who uses it and how familiar they are with the product.

I had a chance to contact UiPath when UiPath licenses needed updating. I had close contact. I wrote a ticket and I had contact with them in less than an hour. I was quite pleased with their response time. 

I made the right decision to go with a solution that can scale automation without having to pay attention to the infrastructure and to develop my skills in terms of RPA.

I had to do tests with Blue Prism and UiPath. Currently, I use UiPath, as I find it's much easier to use than other RPA tools. For example, I really like Orchestrator, from a user perspective. The control of both is really easy as it's centralized in NonProduction Orchestrator, and it's really easy to operate it. There's general ease of development. In Blue Prism, for example, if you want to develop something, first you need to prepare the object layer, and after that, you can go to the business layer and connect it in one solution. In UiPath, we create just a component and connect components together which is more logical.

I was not exactly involved in the initial setup as when I joined the company, UiPath had already been set up. Therefore, everything was prepared to start development. That said, for a few months, I worked in UI as a consultant for external clients. During that time I had the chance to install UiPath for external clients. In that sense, I've been involved in the installation of UiPath previously.

The initial setup's level of difficulty depends on a client's needs. At first, we need to think about the strategy of the client. In general, UiPath provides different types of architecture and it's generally straightforward.

The setup could take weeks if you need, for example, to order servers. However, if servers are already on-site, we can begin the installation. As I recall, I set up Orchestrator in a few hours.

We have calculations for that and we are on the right path. There is an ROI when using UiPath, however, I thought it would be higher. That said, we can calculate costs related to the UiPath environment and compare it to the automated processes created and we can see we are on a good path. It's hard, however, to provide exact numbers at this time. 

I'm not sure if UiPath has sped up or reduced the cost of digital transformation. It's a tough question, as the license for the solution is too expensive right now. In Western Europe, it may be okay to pay such money for a license, however, where I work now, in Poland, the license cost is too high for the local market.

We have a connection to ServiceNow. In ServiceNow, there is an approval process to publish UiPath processes on the Production Orchestrator, and that's easy. I'm able to set schedules or run a process model from our Production Orchestrator.

We have different servers for development, including a different server for Orchestrator and a different server for production. However, everything is in my company environment.

At this point, I only use unattended automation. Currently, there are no projects for attended automation as it's more for the business side. I am just a developer from the IT side. I am not involved in any business department.

I'd advise those considering the solution to find a really good developer and maybe a solution architect. Some time ago, UiPath had marketing such as, "everyone could be a developer," and so on. That said, it does not work like that. UiPath developers should have a large IT background. During my career, I've seen a lot of projects fail due to developers' lack of skills.

My biggest takeaway from the solution is that automation is a process that doesn't have a start and end point. It's an ongoing process.

Overall, I'd rate the product at an eight out of ten. If the licensing price matched the local market's capabilities, I'd give it higher marks. I would like to start deploying the UiPath solution in Polish companies, and there is huge scope to do it, however, for now, it's too expensive.

I am a service provider and developer who implements UiPath for our clients. But in the company that I work for, we also use UiPath to make invoices for ourselves and, mainly, for payroll activities.

We need to get reports from our HR tool and combine them with another source of information where employees are recording the hours they spent with various clients. We then create the documents needed for the IRS. In our case, all the users of UiPath are data entry specialists in different departments, such as HR, finances, and marketing.

UiPath definitely helps reduce the cost of digital transformation.

It also reduces human error. We can be sure, given that our test case is successful, that there are no errors when none are reported. This definitely helps businesses. Errors generally lead to work being postponed. When errors come back to someone at a given point in time, they can rapidly overwhelm that person. With automation working, this is no longer the case because everything is smooth. And if there are errors, they will resolve them one by one.

In addition, it definitely frees up employee time. That is the purpose of automation. Unfortunately, I can't share metrics about this. But the additional time enables employees to focus on more important work and that affects employee satisfaction. Repetitive tasks make people irritated about the nature of their work. When they can work on new tasks that are more complex and creative, it makes an impact on their job satisfaction.

UiPath saves costs in our organization because we don't have errors where it is deployed and because it has reduced the number of FTEs who do repetitive tasks. On average, within a small company, it can save up to 10 FTEs.

One of the most valuable features is that UiPath is easy to deploy, especially for medium-sized companies. It is also easy to scale.

Also, the fact that you can scale automations without having to pay attention to the infrastructure for doing so is quite critical. The infrastructure could require a lot of maintenance resources and affect costs, so that feature is quite important.

UiPath enables you to implement end-to-end automation, with its full range of tools, starting from Automation Hub, which is the initial point for gathering your processes from business lines. It's driven from employees or a center of excellence, and goes on to include implementation, and the reporting in Orchestrator is quite powerful as well. The end-to-end coverage is important, as clients always like one tool that covers their needs and plans.

The only thing missing is something to track the development cycle. We use third-party tools to do that. That is the only gap in UiPath.

Also, scheduling of UiPath robots could be improved. Scheduling is a feature for defining in what sequence, and on what machines, you want your automations to be launched. That area could be improved.

I have been using UiPath for more than three years.

Overall, the stability of UiPath is about average. We do have some instability, because of workloads that are too massive for Orchestrator, but it could be that it was not installed in the right way.

Scalability is connected to the stability. The situation I noted when talking about the stability of UiPath happened for our largest client, where they already have 160 processes running. There are problems with the maintenance of such a large number of bots.

But in terms of increasing our usage, we are in a phase with our clients in which we are constantly enlarging the automation within their companies.

UiPath support is definitely willing to help. They will usually propose a call, if they think that will be easier for solving an issue. Their services are quite good.

We did not have a previous solution, except for Excel macros.

It is relatively easy to deploy. Of course, it's not as straightforward as a simple application installation, but with the help of UiPath, in particular, or with the help of the UiPath Community Forum, which is quite enhanced with answers about installation, it's not a big deal to install it.

Taking into consideration internal IT restriction and internal IT resources, deployment can take up to two weeks.

Our deployment strategy usually involves convincing clients that they need to start setting up a center of excellence for automation and then there are lots of initiatives that need to be undertaken within the center of excellence. Among the most critical are awareness, dealing with IT stakeholders, and of course, the capabilities of developers. Taking care of those things will lead you to a smooth path for digitizing the first processes, which are low-hanging fruit. The further you go, the more you can then enhance your automation with the more advanced capabilities, like AI, Document Understanding, or chat bots, et cetera.

Deployment of one robot takes about three months and up to five people. We need an SME who knows the process that is being automated. In addition, there is usually a business analyst who tries to help optimize the process so that it will work better with robots. We need a developer, of course, and we usually have a data solution architect who helps to ensure that overall infrastructure is functioning. It also helps to have an automation evangelist on the business side.

We have two roles for UiPath maintenance. One is the IT maintenance guy who makes sure the VM is working correctly, and that we can easily scale from the infrastructure perspective. The second role is the operator, whose day-to-day tasks include scheduling the bots correctly, implementing quick deployments by creating assets in Orchestrator, and maintaining things from an RPA perspective.

ROI usually takes six to 12 months.

Licensing is quite complex, and sometimes that's true even when we have to explain it to our customers. There may not be a way to do it more simply.

The only potential additional cost when implementing UiPath involves the third-party tools. It can be a quite big portion, of course, so you should consider that aspect. Examples would be integrating different systems within a company, systems such as Salesforce, SAP, or ServiceNow; all of the main CRMs that businesses use.

We looked at the main competitors, Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. The decision to go with UiPath was based on contacts we have, clients who had already implemented RPA. We got better feedback about UiPath from them.

The first thing to consider within your organization is whether it's easier to deploy it on-prem or via the cloud version. Then focus on how to structure your development team. It can be either entirely a third-party service provider, or in-house developers, or it could be a hybrid. The third thing to consider is what the cost center will be for RPA implementation in your company.

The marketing side of how easily you can build automations with UiPath is a bit exaggerated. You definitely need some programming skills to do very powerful automations with it. But it still provides various levels of development tools, meaning that you could have zero programming experience and still automate some processes in your company.

UiPath is definitely the market leader in RPA. The biggest lesson I have learned from using it is to start with the low-hanging fruit, and then go on to more complex stuff.

I am currently involved in healthcare-related projects and wholesale/retail-related projects. Previously, I was involved with banking and financial services, healthcare, and retail.

My current company is using a combination of the UiPath tool and SAP automation.

In my previous company, I used the UiPath tool for many projects.

It has a very easy drag and drop process and logic base setup. Previous projects were taking a lot of time. However, when we used UiPath on the same projects, instead of a process/task taking a day, it was now taking anywhere from 10 minutes to five hours.

There is almost no human involvement. For example, in banks, a bank manager will receive so many loan applications. We create some bots to check the requirements after validation and do the follow-up work. The manager is only checking boxes for the final approval request.

In the banking sector, I am using AI Center and creating some workflows. Some machine learning is needed to create these workflows in AI Center. This gives us a 94% accuracy, which is good accuracy.

Document Understanding is a good feature. It is a combination of artificial intelligence and machine learning. We have created some workflows using Document Understanding. We are using its machine learning to do some language analysis, semantic analysis, and invoice processing. UiPath currently provides some language conversions, such as German to Russia and Russian to German. However, it does not offer Russian to German, English to German, German to English, Russian to English, and English to Russian as well as some non-trainable languages.

Document Understanding has been one of the best features for invoice processing. For example, companies require some keywords in invoices. While normal frameworks take much of time, we upload the invoices using Document Understanding, then determine the keywords required for cross referencing. The cross reference is very fast. It will capture the amount and put that in an Excel format. This is a very good feature.

A valuable feature of UiPath has been the REFramework. In banking, we need to log in to the website with a user ID and password. Once, we did that wrong and the workflow stopped. Using REFramework, there is exception handling. Stability depends on the correct configuration of error handling, so this is the best feature. 

It has some Citrix recording options.

The AI Center feature has been very good. It supports many machine learning languages and skills. It speeds execution and provides a good savings on time.

I like the certifications offered by UiPath Academy.

I would like UiPath to give free trial licenses for more features, like AI Center. UiPath currently offers two licenses for the trial version. However, if I need to practice in AI Center, then I need four to six licenses.

I have been using UiPath since 2018.

The stability is very good.

There are no limitations for Windows.

We have over 500 activities in UiPath right now.

I haven't used the technical support so much. My colleagues use it sometimes, depending on their problem. The speed of their response depends on the type of plan, normal or enterprise, that needs support. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

There is also social media support through Twitter and LinkedIn.

The user community is very good. I am a member. If a developer has any doubts when working on a project, then a lot of people in the community are ready to give immediate answers.

Positive

We have faced challenges when installing market-related data. We need to dig deep when we are installing it with Orchestrator and/or VMware. All the documentation is available, but it needs to be prepared in advance. Whereas, we work in real-time.

I have been involved with many client installations for UiPath and Orchestrator. We do standalone installations for single node and multi-node systems, like Linux. Linux is not fully supported, as compared to Windows. UiPath deploys well on Windows.

My previous company had good ROI using UiPath compared to other tools.

UiPath Academy is free of cost.

The UiPath Community Edition is enough to implement any complex workflows.

The price for attended robots is good.

Some features are very costly, like Document Understanding. That is why in India many customers are not using the Document Understanding license. This is a premium feature and its licensing costs are high compared to other tools.

Compared to other tools, UiPath provides a good, rich environment.

I am using AutomationEdge, which is similar to UiPath, but a small tool. It provides the same features as UiPath, but it is not as popular a tool. The UiPath Academy videos are very good and better than those offered by AutomationEdge. While AutomationEdge also has a free learning course, you must watch their videos from start to finish. UiPath has no restrictions on its learning, which is good and the best option. For example, when you are an advanced learner, you want to go to advanced training courses. However, AutomationEdge makes you start from scratch, even as an advanced user of RPA.

Some processes are faster in AutomationEdge than in UiPath for insurance-related organizations.

I am also using Automation Anywhere, which is a popular tool in comparison to UiPath. However, feature-wise, UiPath is easier to use because Automation Anywhere requires complicated coding knowledge, though some of their features are very good. While UiPath requires some coding knowledge, it is not as high level as Automation Anywhere.

UiPath is the number one tool in my opinion. I would recommend choosing UiPath for someone looking to purchase an automation tool for the first time.

UiPath has very good accuracy. I would overall rate this solution as 10 out of 10.

We have developed a product for a court of arbitration. UiPath provides the automation engine behind it. Our product is a platform that is live online. It allows a party to provide some contract information, and the robot assembles a document and communicates with DocuSign, our signature provider. It then sends out a correspondence to the other party and manages the signature process for a bespoke contract for an arbitration agreement.

This is a service that we provide to the world, pro bono, as it were, to promote arbitration and the adoption of a particular arbitration clause. It's accessible to all. Parties can log in and it helps them to negotiate and conclude an arbitration agreement in a mediated fashion. The robot sends out email on behalf of a third-party, a court of arbitration, and it helps the parties get that agreement done.

It's about concluding an arbitration agreement before the dispute goes any further.

It helps us in providing added value to the clients and to the community at large. It's a marketing thing for us, in the widest possible sense, rather than something that we use in our practice.

But in terms of reducing the cost of digital transformation, if a person had to do what the robot does, it would probably be impossible. It would be impossibly costly. If one person had to handle the communication, instead of the robot, and try to negotiate each addendum, nobody would do it because it would take days or weeks for a lawyer to manage, and it would be prohibitive. Yet, all of a sudden, we have this service that is so cheap in many ways that it can even be provided for nominal user fees. It's quite dramatic.

I would also imagine that processing time is reduced by many orders of magnitude. As a professional, if I had to manage an addendum like that, it would take me weeks. And it takes about seven minutes or so, if all goes well.

What I have found interesting is that our product acts as a human would but it's not intrusive. It doesn't require any real integration or interface with one's own systems, in any meaningful way. Obviously, you need access, an account to log in, but it otherwise acts as a human, and that makes deployment quite smooth. It doesn't require you to change anything in your system. I found that very useful.

Regarding the ease of building automations, I'm not sure how it's done because I'm not a programmer myself, but it's great. Just looking at how fast they moved once we had the program settled in — it was quite fast. For this particular process, which is assembling a document, talking to DocuSign, sending out emails, and so on, the deployment of production was like "today." It was quite quick.

In terms of the ease of management of automations using UiPath, I don't dare poke into it, as a non-technical person, but it looks manageable. I have someone who does not do RPA normally, who doesn't do this type of programming at all, but that person knows where to look for errors and doesn't get lost. It's reasonably accessible.

I could use more standardized features, retail-style, things that I could use off-the-shelf. Right now, all this requires quite a bit of adaptation in bespoke work with UiPath, which they've done very well. But looking at it after having used it, I would get stuff that is prepackaged from them, if they were any.

We launched with UiPath in June.

The stability of the solution is okay. 

The downside of the upside, when I said that it works like a human, is that in some cases, if it interacts with a website that is changing, then it's like a human. You need to adapt it to the changing environment in which it works. That's an inevitable fact of life, that it interacts with other apps. It can also interact through APIs, but you want it to be very flexible, you want it to be an agent, like a human. The downside of that is that if something changes with a website, then of course, you have to change the robot and tweak it a little bit. But that's the only issue that has required our attention so far.

Our product is a public-facing instrument and we have had no problem with the number of users, so we have not seen any issues with scalability.

In terms of potentially increasing our use of UiPath, we're exploring a number of solutions actually, for practice management and actual lawyer work. These would be in-house solutions, rather than public-facing. We have a few ideas that we have run by them and we are waiting for feedback.

We've had no problem with the customer support. We were in direct contact with the whole team. They have always been quick to respond. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

We would use regular Microsoft automation features. I would have a flag on a particular correspondence, or a particular rule for attachments. We would use little bits and bobs of automation that are available, but we did not have any bespoke solution.

We went with UiPath because they made themselves known in the sector and it was a question of the vision that they communicated. There was a modest vision of providing solutions to very discrete problems, not revolutionary solutions to everything. Rather, they focused on whatever helps in a particular organization. We liked that. It matched our understanding of legal tech as well. It needs to be supportive of whatever little bit of help you need, rather than providing you with an environment that engulfs you with everything. We liked that approach, and when we approached them they were very receptive.

The initial setup process was okay. I'm a non-technical person, but I was able to manage it. 

It took quite a bit to figure out what we wanted from it, the flow and the logic of it. After we agreed on that, on the concept, actual production took two or three days. Of course, somebody had already done a proof of concept, although that was not based on a final brief. We danced around and changed it a bit.

For maintenance, we have somebody in tech that we pop questions to, and our maintenance of the server is done in-house as well.

We have realized return on our investment. It was a joint project with UiPath so we had special arrangements in terms of licensing, but it was very well received in the market. It was very beneficial for us.

Our product is something that we launched in June, and the robot has been featured in general business publications, in the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and the Resolver, which is the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators magazine, as well as the Romanian Arbitration Journal. Essentially, everybody knows about it. It is one of the most popular UiPath robots out there; the most featured and interviewed robot in the wild. We were quite pleased with the publicity.

My advice is to think about it very carefully and know exactly what everybody is doing every day in the office, the little bits and pieces. Really look at that seriously, because there are so many things that we do in a software environment that are very amenable to automation, and it saves a lot of time. Think very carefully about the particular needs of your office and look into it, because it can save you a lot of money.

It's clear that this is the future.

We use the entire UiPath suite for healthcare revenue cycle management.

Our automations are not run in a virtual environment.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a four. The information about the automation processes was really useful. At the same time, I would suggest including more industry-specific training and knowledge sharing.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one month. I felt that the process was straightforward. It was very intuitive. Most of the resources were available to us and we've got it up and running with no problem.

We have clients for which we provide people to perform various processes. Parts of those processes are exceptions that could not be done by these people but were very time-consuming. We have automated those exceptions so that now, we don't have a percentage of our staff evaluating those exceptions every day. They now run flawlessly one hundred percent of the time. Our clients are happier and we're happier.

In terms of eliminating human errors, UiPath is excellent at that. We have one hundred percent accuracy on all of our automation.

This solution saves us time and it saves our clients time. I would estimate the savings at ten percent where automation is deployed. Some of the automations run slowly but they run around the clock.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of deployment.

More industry-specific training and information would be highly valuable to us. We're a healthcare company, and it would be helpful to know where and how automation is being deployed within a healthcare environment. For example, what have we done that we could share with people, and what are they doing that they could share with us?

The UiPath platform is stable, but it is dependent on other platforms.

For example, we may be extracting data from or populating data in a customer billing system. That billing system might go down and someone needs to wake up the bots after that happens. It is not the fault of UiPath but it is part of the process.

This solution is easy to scale.

We have approximately thirty people involved in our automation program.

We were not using an RPA solution before UiPath contacted us.

We handled the implementation in-house.

We are very close to seeing ROI, although not quite yet.

We looked at some different technologies that were out there and it seemed that UiPath was ready. These included Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere, and one other one. We felt like UiPath was a solid solution that was pretty easy to use and could scale easily and quickly as well.

This is a fantastic solution and we love it, but we definitely see some room for improvement, mainly around interoperability and leveraging intelligent or cognitive RPA and educating their client base around that stuff.

My advice to anybody researching this type of solution is to familiarize yourself with the concepts and all of the market participants, and then choose the one that works best for you.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using UiPath primarily for process automation. We are trying to consolidate information, eliminate redundant manual tasks, and save some money.

I'm developing my first bot, so I can't answer that yet. I've just got my UiPath certification, been thrust into a project which I'm pretty excited about. I don't know what our client is going to ask as of yet. Obviously, those parameters are probably going to change weekly, if not daily. I think there's some scalability to UiPath that's going to make everything pretty convenient and easy to use.

The tool is very simple, even for a layman like myself without a coding background. It's a gateway to the process automation industry. I think this is really the simplest and easiest way to do it.

I used the UiPath Academy and got a certification. It was very easy to use, they are very patient, but it's not automatic. They are very diverse and applications are necessary. The steps just take you all the way through. If you reach a stopping point, you can literally just start over. Then you can try again with another series of questions, some more accessibilities, or different paths towards the same outcome. I loved it. I thought it was pretty simple and pretty easy to use. It's very non-stressful.

Regarding automation, we serve the federal government here, so I'm working for a very specific division in my company. We're serving the client, so I don't even know how new and exciting this is going to be. This is going to be huge. I think we're right on the cusp of all of it. The sky's the limit.

Due to the sensitivity of my project, I would like a new feature like some sort of generic interface or input where other UiPath users can examine our product or our situations and help us fix them. Some sort of official UiPath community within, where everyone can kind of help each other out.

The stability is fine. The only factor we have is a finicky customer. We need to help them with their choices, changes, reversals, augmentations, but it seems to be pretty simple and intuitive so far.

Our initial setup was pretty straightforward. We used it on a secure client-server, so there was no change from what I'd learned on my own and what I had to use in the work environment. It was pretty simple.

In as far as learning the product, it is almost free in its efficiency in teaching people like myself how to use it. With regards to the client, it's a little early yet, but they project incredible savings. One thing I should say about UiPath and process automation is that it's not an attempt to eliminate jobs. This is a huge misconception and stigma. It's an attempt to make working more efficient. In that respect, I think it'll save everyone a lot of money if they're willing to try it and implement it.

I've heard about some alternatives, but I haven't used them yet. UiPath is my first entrance into this. I really don't see the need to use anything else. The client likes it as well, so if they're happy with it, I have absolutely no desire to investigate anything else.

I would rate this solution as a solid nine out of ten, just because I haven't used it very long. I'm probably going to give it a ten. I don't know what else UiPath can do for me, and I'm sure there's more.

The primary use case is business services (finance).

When we would have a huge backlog, we would hire short-term employees for some of our cases. Now, we don't have to do that anymore.

It is easy to use, automate, and scale.

UiPath should make the solution part of customer's everyday (more user-friendly).

I would like to see the following additional features going forward:

• Advanced scheduling
• Easier implementation of the robots
• Better analytics
• Easier non-technical overview of the process.

The stability is pretty good.

Our Citrix environment works, but it is quite unstable. It takes a lot of processing time because it is unstable. We have to do a lot of checks and so on.

The scalability is pretty good.

I have not had to use the customer support.

The UiPath Academy is fine. I would like it if the videos were more written out for reading purposes, since I have been developing in UiPath for some years before taking the Academy. Having to watch all the videos was a bit slow and time consuming.

The company was not using an another RPA solution previously.

The implementation went really well. The initial setup was straightforward, but when you start to scale, you have to figure out how to do it.

Our Citrix environment works, but it is quite unstable. It takes a lot of processing time because it is unstable. We have to do a lot of checks and so on. 

I was a consultant doing implementations for many years before taking an implementation with this company.

We have seen ROI. It has saved our organization time.

It has eliminated human errors. There are now more processes where we do checks and controls than we would do with an actual human, because it takes no time for a robot to do the checks. 

We are only using Unattended Robots. Though, I can really see a use case for Attended Robots, especially with these cases where there are a lot of errors. The user could help the robot and we can process the case, instead of having in error.

It is really easy to use and get started with, but if you want to build up more complex processes, you need to have a bit of a development background to make it easier to understand anyone other than yourself.