UiPath Reviews

We are primarily utilizing the platform within our department to gain buy-in for the customer's system.

We are a traditional development team, and using this platform has enabled us to work with multiple teams efficiently.

The governance aspect is very important to us. UFS Studio is also crucial for our operations.

There are significant delays between the technical team and the actual team. We are also missing some integrations with Google.

I cannot specify the exact amount of time we've been using it.

We have a dedicated development team. That said, we do have the resources to help with implementation.

I cannot speak on how it compares to other models or other components.

We primarily use UiPath for RCM and it can handle most tasks effectively, especially when dealing with data extraction from PDF files. There might be more complex scenarios where AI could be more suitable, although the implementation might be challenging. We are in the process of evaluating these AI-powered use cases.

We have found UiPath to be quite valuable as we actively deploy and use bots, which have become a significant asset to our operations. 

We were able to achieve the savings. It has freed up around ten thousand hours of time and resources for other tasks.

Improving financial and recording operations through the use of charts would be advantageous.

I have been using UiPath for approximately two years.

The stability is excellent.

Scalability is impressive, and it only requires the appropriate licensing.

The support is quite commendable, and they are very prompt in addressing issues. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward.

ROI is significant when the use case results in substantial cost savings, but it's important to note that not all use cases deliver such hard savings.

The cost is on the higher side.

My recommendation is to thoroughly assess use cases and choose the right tools to prevent possible setbacks. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

I'm a consultant. Right now, I work on supply chain coordination. I have also used UiPath for finances, for building reports for engineering, and for human resources departments.

The solution is on-premises, but we are migrating to the cloud.

The solution helps a lot when we are dealing with big companies where governance is a must. We can have multiple centers of excellence at different places in the company. UiPath is easy to deploy and easy to manage for such companies as we can centralize a lot of things in one place.

For example, with Orchestrator not only can we monitor all the bots and processes, but it helps in the development phase as well. If we want to have custom libraries that solve specific problems for the company, we can create those custom libraries and share them throughout the organization. This helps a lot when it comes to governance, compared to other automation solutions.

I created a project based on attended automation and it was successful in helping the user. It was a bot to create engineering reports and the user was able to implement it on a daily basis. I have a positive view of attended automations. Having said that, unattended bots are preferable because we want most of the processes to be automated, end-to-end, and not require the user to start them. We use attended robots only when there is no other solution. So attended bots are not as relevant as unattended robots, in my experience.

In addition, because the user did not need to create that report anymore, he could focus on more analytical thinking. That is something that I always say when starting an RPA project. Users become freer to do analytical thinking and not robotic thinking where they just click here and there and move some Excel files. I would estimate it saved them five to eight hours a week.

In a lot of the projects I have worked on, reducing human error was one of the priorities for the automation. When working with human resources, for example, reports could go wrong if the user did not create them properly. This could cause the company to have to pay fees. Automating those reports reduced the risk to zero and helped with compliance.

UiPath also reduces the overall costs of automation operations. Although it's more expensive as a solution when compared to other vendors, because it's a very consistent application and there is really good support from the UiPath team, it is the fastest when it comes to developing and deploying automation. It is surely the most reliable in the long term. That's where UiPath is at the top.

The best feature, for sure, is the ease of development. It's very easy to create an automation from scratch. Time to production is really fast when everything is already set up and we have a clear view of what needs to be done. UiPath has a more friendly development environment compared to other vendors of RPA.

And the Task Capture feature helps implement end-to-end automation starting with process analysis. Task Capture helps us map a business process from start, and it can generate code in UiPath's Studio development platform. If you use it correctly, it definitely helps.

And with Orchestrator, we can keep watch over all the executions and also create easy integrations with BI tools like Power BI and Tableau, if I need some extra analysis on the data that is being processed. Orchestrator provides everything that I need for monitoring.

Although they add a lot of enhancements every month to the solution in general, they could focus more on UiPath Studio. I would like to see them add more features for developers who have a deeper understanding of programming languages. 

They could also make it easier to integrate custom-made functions.

One of the downsides of Automation Cloud, and this is more an issue related to the Community version, is that they always place the newest features on the Community version. I have experienced some issues when implementing automations on that version because things can change from one day to another. Some of these changes can impact automations that were running. But when it comes to the Enterprise version, things are very stable. They will never change things like that from one day to the next.

I've been using UiPath for about three years.

It's pretty stable. I have never gotten errors on the connection between the bots, Orchestrator, and Studio. 

The errors I have found are generally related to the network or to a virtual machine with fewer resources than the minimum requirements. 

The overall execution of the automations is pretty fast, even when dealing with high volumes of data from Excel files, compared to VBA or another scripting tool.

I have opened tickets with UiPath and they have helped me a lot in solving the issues. I have never had major issues with support. If I need to open an urgent ticket, I get a response on the same day. They call me to solve the issue together with them, if needed.

It's also really good that UiPath has a strong community. They started the idea of sharing new features and engaging the community. That has definitely helped UiPath to be on the list of the top vendors. There were times when I reached out to the community and they were very fast in helping me solve a question or get through an error. The community, for me, is one of the differences when compared to other RPA vendors.

Positive

I have not worked with other solutions at an enterprise level. I have looked at them just to understand how they work and to see if they could serve my purposes better than UiPath.

The on-premises setup takes some time because we have to implement Orchestrator among other things. Generally, it's very fast. Sometimes there are issues, things like application and environment access, but they're usually more related to the customer that I'm working with. Overall, if everything is good to go, installation and configuration can be done in a day.

I worked with a national company on an on-premises solution and it took four hours to install Orchestrator, and one to two hours more to implement UiPath Studio and the UiPath robot. It was really straightforward with no configuration errors. Using the right versions of Windows Server and the virtual machines, the ones that UiPath recommends, helps everything go smoothly.

When working with a customer that is just starting to use RPA, I usually pick all the recommendations for installation and configuration from the UiPath vendor website. I then add some extra tips on configuring the Windows Server and ask the customer to provide the environments. That gives me access to everything that I need. 

There can always be additional details to deal with, but they are usually errors to do with infrastructure, permissions, or proxy configuration on the customer's side. These are usually things that they did not mention, and then we have to reconfigure things. But if I don't know how to handle them I can usually find a UiPath tutorial where they teach you how. UiPath always provides the knowledge that I need to implement the solution.

UiPath speeds up digital transformation. When dealing with a customer's first RPA implementation, and they are comparing UiPath with other vendors, the downside of UiPath is always the price because it's the most expensive platform. However, it is the fastest and most reliable. The community is great. The support is great. So it definitely speeds up the digital transformation process a lot.

When customers are comparing tools, we focus on the strong points of UiPath. For example, it's the least expensive over the long term because it's very reliable, and we are not going to spend too much time on the development. The development is always faster when compared to other tools.

If customers are only looking at the initial price for implementing RPA, they may go with other vendors. I have seen this happen a couple of times. When this is the case we will usually want to use the least expensive license possible from UiPath. For example, when a company has only one unattended robot, they will try to put multiple processes on the same robot before jumping to buy another robot and expanding the overall architecture.

Some things can be done with open-source tools, but they lack governance when implementing automation on a large scale. When we talk about scaling the solution, a solution like UiPath is the clearest choice.

Free automation tools are not going to be as easy to deploy and scale as UiPath.

When we are developing RPA projects for digital transformation, we want to provide a solution that is reliable and fast. UiPath helps on both of those counts. It enables us to implement automation in a fast, secure, and reliable way.

I have worked on some projects with UiPath Automation Cloud, but mostly using the same tools as usual. I didn't take too much advantage of what the cloud provides, compared to other projects, but it's easier to manage if a company needs to start from scratch. With Automation Cloud you don't have as much to maintain, such as handling an on-premises server. It also definitely helps for keeping things updated.

With everything centralized on Automation Cloud, it's very easy when it comes to a higher level of governance. For example, if I want to manage the licensing between Orchestrators, and create different tenants and manage the access between those tenants, that is all very easy to do. UiPath gives you a very clean interface.

A SaaS solution helps a lot when working on projects for many of our customers because they do not have any RPA infrastructure. They are often starting their first project and a SaaS solution has everything centralized. They can just buy one license for attended or unattended robots and start from there. It's great for the customers because they only need to worry about a virtual machine in their environment. We create a minimum viable product more efficiently because we don't have to worry about the configuration of their own Orchestrator and the like.

Also, when they want to scale, Automation Cloud will be much easier.

I keep myself updated on the news from UiPath and they are starting to implement serverless robots on the cloud. I don't know if this is already available in the Enterprise version, but when it comes out, companies do want to implement it because they won't even need to worry about an on-premises virtual machine. Everything will be in the cloud.

I started my learning about UiPath from the Academy. It's very good and very insightful, and the questions and exercises are everything that you need to learn how to automate using UiPath Studio or any other tool.

The Academy is a must for starting with RPA using UiPath. There are some other courses online in other learning platforms, but UiPath already provides everything that you need to start an RPA career. Not only can you learn the developer's role, but also the role of a business analyst and solution architect. It gives you an understanding of all the steps involved in creating and managing automations.

The certification is also very important. At the time I did the certification, it was free. It's very valuable for someone starting out who wants to get an RPA job.

I work at a financial firm where we do trade settlement activity. We are using UiPath for cleaning up data, doing reconciliation, and finding where the trade breaks and trade files are. It helps us lay the groundwork for the value add work, which comes later.

It allows us to grow our business. The use case that we have is a huge time saver because we do not have a lot of volume right now. We are looking to sell part of the business and get more clients onto it. The only way we could do that or even open that door for possibility is to automate and go through a lot more volume. 

Our teams are under huge pressure because trade volume has gone up over the past year. UiPath is just getting us back to the status quo and then also opening the pipeline for more volume to go through. We have a very strong program that encourages people to get trained up on tools. 

StudioX is going to be a big game changer for us. We found with the other tools that we use that as soon as we put UiPath in the hands of everyday users and ops users, they will be able to quickly learn it. This will make a big impact because we will get big volumes and projects coming through.

UiPath has done a good job coming up with the broadest use cases. However, I would like to see them dive into more industry-specific use cases. For example, checked OCR and brokerage statements are common. Anything unique to the financial industry would be useful for us.

We have using UiPath since February when it got brought into our team. We just had our first box go live about two weeks ago. We have had three go live so far; one using StudioX and two using Studio.

So far, I haven't heard any issues. We are always going to expect issues, but so far so good and I hope the stability is good. Alteryx had issues at times, which created some pretty big problems. Hopefully, UiPath will not do that as much, because we are expecting to lean on it.

I have not used them directly. 

It was not so much a switch for us. We are still using Alteryx. UiPath is a much better automation tool than what we were using before because it was self-service. We didn't have to have our COE build it and related solutions for us. We have similar functionality with Alteryx. Anyone can learn it and start building and go through our governance process. Doing so, they can have a huge impact on their team.

We are a large company and the initial setup took our COE quite a few months. However, I believe their experience was positive overall. A lot of the issues we had were internal and concerned how we were going to do our governance. We were very strict about that. 

Getting people access was easy and so was learning to build. Everything on the UiPath side went smoothly.

We're a mature automation team. Over the past four years, we've delivered well over 150 FTE. We're always looking for new tools and to pick up some of that automation that we couldn't do before. 

UiPath has helped with data scraping and plugging into websites and combining that with Alteryx. We can attack 90% of our use cases now. We can not deal with the other 10% for internal governance reasons and not so much capability.

The three use cases we have implemented with UiPath have saved about half an FTE. 

I know that the reason we went with UiPath is because it is a lot cheaper than the other vendor we were using. It is of a better quality as well, but it is less expensive to run on an ongoing basis. 

I'm not sure if we evaluated other options. My team does not look into the suite of options. We have a separate COE that sets everything up for us. We are tasked with implementation. 

My advice is to first build a good team that you can trust. Because great tools are useless if you don't have any builders or people that know how to use the tools. That is what we have been focused on. Also, have very specific support for your team.

We primarily assist clients in deploying UiPath within Finance/Accounting and Internal Audit but have also realized the benefits of deploying it within our accounting function to assist with expense reporting and invoice processing.

We have also successfully complemented our technology solutions practice, which deploys ERP systems such as Workday and Coupa, where we have built some specific automations to accelerate deployment and assist with normal processing.

We have been able to save several hours each month allowing our staff to focus on more value-added efforts. For just downloading expense reports, a staff accountant can save between four and five hours each month. A lot of the prep work needed to send out invoices to clients is now being completed through automation.  

The most valuable features are the flexibility of the tool, ease of use, and training. We spend more time documenting the process and exceptions, wherein the build component doesn't take too long. Our consultants have been able to go through the training videos and pick up the ability to build their own automations.  

I would like more incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) features to allow for intelligent character recognition which can account for different formats and unstructured data. Specifically, the ability to not have to create templates for various formats to account for variation and rather intelligently extract key data regardless. There are some AI-like features in beta, but we are very interested in deploying now. 

We have been using UiPath over two years.

If built and deployed correctly, the solution is very stable.

The scalability is great! There are several use cases already and an endless possibility of areas where UiPath/RPA can be leveraged. 

I haven't had to interact with technical support, as of yet.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is straightforward, both from interaction with systems and security. 

We deployed this solution in-house.

We have been able to avoid hiring more staff accountants, so more cost avoidance.

Plan for the future! Don't just focus on trying to buy a license to meet your current need, but look to have the right infrastructure in place to help you scale. The investment is relatively small compared to the potential in qualitative and quantitative benefits that can be achieved.

We do have past experience, but when it came to deploying in our internal operations team, we focused on UiPath. We have found UiPath to be the most flexible to deploy.

We are excited to see the new game-changing features with UiPath!

We are a company that provides technical services and this is one of the solutions that we implement for our clients. One of our use cases is to help automate simple processes for banks.

In all of our processes, the time to complete them is still improving. We are always trying to minimize the time that each one takes. Our system automatically compares the performance between the robot processors and the manual processors.

UiPath is easy for the clients to use. We have an Excel file that contains the parameters and this is used to start their applications.

I would like to see some artificial intelligence for UiPath that would help us with OCR and other things like computer vision. AI would be helpful for us to implement those kinds of solutions.

We have been using UiPath for a year or two.

We have used the Community Edition and the Enterprise Edition, and we have not had any problems with stability.

Technical support for UiPath is great. When we look for something, we usually find it on their website. They also get back to us rapidly and provide responses to every request, even when we contact them by email.

Deploying a process that is simple or of medium complexity takes between one and two months.

This solution is not cheap but the price is worth it because by following the documentation and using the support, you get good robotic processes that are stable. Overall, we are satisfied with the pricing.

Overall, I would recommend UiPath. My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to look at their website because it is very helpful and it can help them to make a decision about implementing it or not.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use Studio, Orchestrator, attended and unattended robots.

My primary use for this solution is back-office automation in a banking environment.

We run automations in a virtual environment, both for development and production. The robots are implemented in a development environment first, which is connected to Citrix. Once the process automation is finalized, including deployment and UAT has passed, we move the same file from the development Orchestrator to the production Orchestrator in the production environment. Production is also in Citrix.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a three. We have legacy Oracle applications and I'm finding it difficult to find selectors for the older, legacy systems.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a four. Some of the lessons are really easy, whereas others are more difficult, but you need to finish everything, otherwise you cannot go further. This is what I didn't like about it.

It took approximately one month to implement our first robot. Prior to purchasing the license, we implemented our PoC using the Community Edition. That took three weeks. After that, my company bought the license and it took about a week to put into production.

With respect to saving time, we save a lot of manual hours by using automation. I would estimate that we save eighty hours per month, on average.

In some of our processes, it took an hour to run them and the resource used to have to watch them manually. They are now automated and running in unattended mode, and the resource is finding other activities to do. There are more than one hundred of these types of processes.

In terms of eliminating human errors, I would say that we have a ninety-five percent reduction in our rate of errors.

The most valuable features are the scheduler, queues, and activities. The activities are there for applications like Excel, Word, and Outlook.

More Excel activities should be included. We do have basic Excel activities, but we don't have ones to do things like add colors or formulas. For these types of operations, we always use custom objects and have to write custom code or pay for them.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a four.

My automation is one hundred percent working in my dev environment; however, the same package is not working with one hundred percent success in the production environment. It's a ninety-eight percent success rate, because sometimes there is a network issue, like slowness, and it's breaking my automation.

We have eleven people working in our automation group including process architects, developers, and testers.

I would rate our experience with technical support a five out of five. Whenever I needed help on the infrastructure, or with development, they immediately responded and tried to solve the problem. In cases where it was not solvable, they would jump on a call and look at through our code to help us out.

Prior to using this solution, we used both Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere.

When it comes to deciding the suitability for automation and the choice of vendor, we consider the results of the process mining. We evaluate how many hours and how much money will be saved. We also consider how frequently the automation will be run, such as quarterly, monthly, or even daily.

One of our clients did not like the support from Blue Prism, which is why we jumped onto UiPath and implemented it.

The initial setup of this solution is complex. We began immediately with a setup for high availability, but somehow we messed it up. We did not have the proper documentation and ended up getting help from UiPath.

They helped us, but overall, I would say that it is not straightforward.

We implemented this solution in-house with support from UiPath.

We have not yet seen ROI from this solution.

The licensing fees for this solution are $8,000 USD annually.

Everybody says that this solution is easy to implement, but I do not find it that easy. It may be true for very simple processes, but not for more complex ones. For that, we need to have some kind of development and analytical skills. 

That said, from a code developer's point of view, I haven't found any difficulties with this solution. My advice for anybody who is considering this type of solution is to try UiPath.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it to automate functions in supply, finance, and HR.

It has saved time and brought efficiencies to our company.

The licensing mechanism allows us to share licenses between different users.

The speed of development needs improvement. They need to make it easier for non-trained people to be able to develop alterations that work the first time. On the development side, the initial development processes should be a focus.

The product is not easy to learn if a person has no interest in the product.

The product is stable. We have not experienced any downtime.

We have not scaled up yet, so it is too early to tell.

The technical support is very good. They are knowledgeable. I always find the right person. It is probably the best thing about the product.

It is easy to use because we receive support from UiPath. Also, the product is easy to train people on and get people using it. You don't need a technical background to learn it.

The initial setup is straightforward enough, not too complex.

It is not oversold. It does do what it was advertised to do.

We use other vendors and find all the products quite similar.

The support that we get from the company is good, and it does everything that we expect it to do. It seems to be a very good product, so far.