UiPath Reviews

I have worked in many industries and domains like healthcare and finance. I have automated web-based applications and Email automation.

Automated an end-to-end process that starts with the user raising a request in BMC Remedy. It handles requests for respective Roles in the GRC System of SAP. This process includes identifying the Request number from the BMC remedy Ticket. The BOT identifies respective control owners for requested roles and requests the controlling owner for their approval. Then BOT performs the Approval/Rejection process accordingly.

UiPath has improved my organization in many ways. With the help of UiPath, we were able to automate our mundane and repetitive tasks and this has saved us lots of time. Also, it has enhanced our productivity and reduces the error rate. We were able to complete our tasks as per client requirements.

Orchestrator is the feature that allows making use of robots for remote location systems. The work queue is the added advantage to maintain the bot data.

The inbuilt RE Framework makes development easier and fast.

UiPath helped me to automate the various complex and mundane processes. You can also run your Python and .NET code in UiPath, which makes the development easy.

The UiPath interface is very user-friendly and also it is easy to learn and use.

There are many online certifications in the UiPath Academy, so it helps the user to become a certified developer and learn everything from the online courses.

Support from the UiPath community is very good.

There are some problems with selectors and in PDF extraction so it could be improved a little bit.

There is a bug in UiPath that occurs when the URL of the web page changes. We are unable to scrap the data from that application page.

The Community Edition is not stable, so end-users working on the Community version may find some errors or issues when using this tool. Also, debugging is not as expected. A lot of issues occur during debugging.

I have been working on UiPath for one and a half years.

UiPath is good stability-wise. I have had a great experience with UiPath.

I find that the scalability of this tool is very good.

Support from UiPath technical community is very good and the response time, I would like to say, is very prompt.

We did not use another RPA solution prior to UiPath.

I was not involved in the Setup part. I had a team for this but as per my understanding, this tool is easy to setup.

I have implemented this through the in-house team.

We did not evaluate other options.

UiPath is a very complete software and allows you to make different robots depending on the system. Its main function is to save time and automate project management, which it does very well. It allows you to remove software and in this way, you will return to Create them but automated so that artificial intelligence (AI) can work correctly. It collaborates with employees.

It is possible to automate, for example, Excel files so that the forms can be filled automatically and not manually.

Overall, I am very happy and I recommend it.

I have been using UiPath in the healthcare area and right now, I am developing a healthcare project. I have also used it in retail projects and we have automated entire retail systems for vendors and customers. This has given them more reliable action and product services that are beneficial for both the organization and the user.

UiPath helps us in the execution of processes that need to be done repetitively, like data entry or content migration. It is fast, affordable, efficient, and easy to use.

Healthcare is also an important project that we have running. It saves time for patient eligibility. 

The most valuable features of UiPath are its activities. There are a number of activities available in the UiPath Studio, which are enough to automate all types of tasks.  Since UiPath is new in the market, it is constantly being updated every day, and new features are being added accordingly to the user requirements. 

I would like to see the computer vision activity updated.

There should be a click-event-update activity present in the UI Studio where we can click a link and the result should act as a button. Right now, this feature is not available in such conditions.

The OCR should be made faster to save more time.

If I am buying production licenses from UiPath it should provide at least two or three nonproduction licenses for further use.

The Studio should be made interactive like Orchestrator.

The debug option in Studio is not working on breakpoints, which is an issue that I have already highlighted in the forum.

I have been using the UiPath and its services for the past year. 

I would rate the stability of this solution and eight out of ten.

With respect to scalability, I would rate it at seven or eight out of ten.

I would rate the UiPath technical support a ten out of ten.

Prior to using UiPath, we used both Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. We have found UiPath to be more reliable, easier to use, more stable, and 100% accurate while performing actions on any element or running automation anytime.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented this solution with our in-house team.

ROI for automation depends on the projects, timing, scope, and reliability.

The primary use case of this solution is to automate the repetitive tasks in the workplace. UiPath is connected to the Orchestrator to centrally manage the robots. Mobile Orchestrator is what we use to control the robots using Android and iPhone mobiles.

UiPath has saved us many FTEs. 24x7 working robots have helped us in saving a lot of time and have reduced human mistakes. Robots take care of tedious and repetitive tasks, where humans concentrate on critical decision making.

We can run and stop the robots at any time using the mobile orchestrator, which has helped us while we were on the go.

We can develop own activities using Visual Studio and integrate them into the UiPath Studio.

We have found the following features valuable:

1. UiPath Studio for developing robots.
   
2. Orchestrator is used to centrally control the robots and view the visual statistics for each one.
3. UiPath Academy provides free courses to learn the solution.
4. The UiPath Community Edition is a free version of Studio that helps everyone to learn and practice with the tool.
5. UiPath Connect & Go offers custom activities developed by people around the globe.

The aspects that we feel can be improved are:

1. Sometimes the tool is not stable with the selectors that are used to identify the different windows within the Windows operating system.
2. Backward compatibility is missing. After upgrading to the new version, some activities won't work.
3. It would be nice to have this tool support other operating systems too.
4. C# is missing and it currently supports only VB.Net. We would like to see C# support in the next release.

We have been using the UiPath tool for more than three years.

We use this solution mainly for data validation.

To start with, we are using Studio for many of our processes.

It reduces human efforts so our employees can put effort into other quality work.

I'm a manager, so we have UiPath for the team and my clients. I am a mediator. We are using Citrix for our VDI environment. We are going to implement the VDI.

Our client already has the UiPath Academy set up. It has been very beneficial in training our team, with its live involvement features, etc. It is good.

The solution has helped us eliminate human error. I would say, as it's now in its initial phase, this is somewhere around 80% to 90%.

It has also saved time for us.

We're just starting to use UiPath now but the automation process which reduces human intervention is the one we like most.

It's also very easy to use. I'm not directly involved in the program side. We have a team. I am the intermediator between our two teams. Those guys prepare the documentation and solution.

I would like to see them improve the validation part of the data categorization.

I would rate the stability of this product as five out of five. The team that works on this told me that once they come up with a use case, they can immediately implement it in UiPath. They have an idea and then can put that feature into practice. This can reduce many efforts.

We have about 500 people in our organization that are involved in the automation program.

We knew we had to invest in a new solution because when there are two categories of data, it is very useful to implement them with UiPath. We previously did this manually, as in with Excel and similar tools.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Every customer in our current scenario is looking to move to digital. They want to make their manuals digital. UiPath is one of the best solutions in the current market industry. That is why we chose UiPath. It is easy to use, plus it gives a lot of benefits to our clients and our own organization as well.

I would say that for the people who are using UiPath without any automation knowledge, the tool will be very useful. Apart from the UiPath platform, there are a lot of videos on YouTube. People can see a session from start to end. That will be useful.

We primarily use the solution for insurance processes where we have redundant activity and we have pain points for our customers. It allows the employees to do more insightful work.

As we are mostly using unintended robots right now, the main value we see is the ability for the solution to take away the redundant tasks. That's the key value. But there's tremendous potential in the attended or hybrid model. The value I see there is allowing people to automate partially or at a time. Whether that's something that we've identified clearly now or something that we look at in the future, I think that lives in the attended or hybrid piece. It would be nice to just see what more we could do and what more value we could add to the business there.

On a scale of one to five, I would validate the ease of use to maintain our processes almost at five now that the solution has introduced Studio X. Studio X has the potential of empowering people to prototype and then pass along more qualified information. It's a game-changer.

Right now just being able to capture process, even without Studio X, let's say we video it or we capture it by way of a traditional Vizio diagram, enables asking work instructions, etc. It allows us to capture and standardize what people are doing as well as take steps toward optimizing processes in general. It's all good stuff.

I wouldn't know without looking at the actual metrics, but I would say in general our pay projects probably cut time by factors. Simply because people do things more slowly, more inefficiently. They're interrupting where the bot is not. That's the reason why we love it so much. The potentials of cost and time savings and the possibility of really having people get some of their time back is great.

We haven't had any problems that make the solution look unstable. I'd give stability a rating of four out of five.

As far as stability is concerned, I'm not sure what people who have deployments of hundreds or thousands of bots are seeing in terms of stability. We're small. For a small implementation, we've had a few hiccups and a few concerns where I would say, how can we triage more quickly, or how can we understand what we've caused more quickly? How can we implement strategies for redundancy and business continuity management? What guidance is there from the company on that and how can we be very transparent to our customers to be clean, concise and clear about that? 

I've talked to a lot of the technical support team. They all know that we're really happy with their responsiveness. We were really happy with the product and we're really happy with them. Just continuing to get the guidance, meeting with them, considering strategies and having them support us has been great. 

In this day and age, RPA is the appropriate tool for certain issues where a lot of times I think a lot of firms, not just ours probably go, "Hey, we don't need a longterm solution that will last forever, but we do need something that's going to automate this process and is going to take this pain point away from the business and this appeases that need." I'm not sure if that's specific to any one certain company; that's just the way that people approach it.

I'm not quite sure the exact reason why our company chose to automate. It was decided before I joined the team.

Implementations from process assessment through actually bringing something to production takes about three months. We'd like to be at six weeks like everyone else. But right now, we're at about three months.

It'll be more straightforward in the future now that we have tools like explore apps and insights. 

The complexity of the project informs the complexity of the implementation. We are an IT services company. We have a very standardized kind of approach to testing and bringing things to production, so I don't think that's terribly complex. It's kind of business as usual. We recently brought a project to 10 productions that had three parts to it. We staggered the implementation that typically might be more complex than what other people are doing. The complexity of the project introduces complexity to the implementation, which is fairly straightforward.

We have a partner that assisted with implementation.

The performance benefits are usually pretty quick. The process assessment that we do that hopefully determines the processes that we would pick, allows us to see ROI fairly soon. I'm not sure what the timeline is on that exactly.

I'm sure our process probably looks like a lot of other companies. We go and look at not only one solution but also its competitors. We look at the top of any certain field and make a decision based on what fits the need the best. 

My understanding is the solution is deployed on-premises.

We also run our deployments in a virtual environment and we have the potential to do hybrid things as we have more processes that are in the pipeline that we must review to see what our roadmap looks like going forward in the future. Our experience with automation within virtual environments so far has been fine.

In terms of the UiPath RPA Training Academy, I've taken a few courses. I've also done Academy live and watched tutorial videos. The UI path engineers and customer service managers, as well as some of the directors that are local to our area, have been very helpful in providing this information. I fully intend to continue to do that and as long as it's available. If I were to rate the training materials, I would say the training materials are probably a five out of five rating. There's a lot of information there.

I would suggest others give the solution a good hard look to see if it works for them. Hopefully, for others, it will be a successful product and a useful tool.

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are using Orchestrator and Studio and we are using both attended and unattended robots.

We use this solution in the compliance space to manage risk.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment.

With our first process going into production just last week, we are just new to RPA. The RPA involvement across our organization is very small given our stage of development, with less than ten people. These are both developers and business users.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would say that it's about a three. The software itself is relatively straightforward and easy to use. However, the task of automating processes can be challenging. Each company is going to be different than others. My experience tells me that process automation perhaps is not as straightforward as businesses may think it is.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. I found the training at the UiPath Academy really good and easy to understand. We were able to download trial versions of the software and apply our training to the trial versions. It is very straightforward and easy for .NET developers to actually use the tools. They felt comfortable, and there was nothing new, just a different way of doing what they do.

My company is probably not a good example of judging how long it takes to build your first robot. We implemented the system and did the process at the same time. So, combined, it took several months. Going forward, because we're no longer putting a system into place, I expect that timeframe to shrink significantly.

Given that the processes were just implemented at the end of last week and the beginning of this week, we have not yet seen the benefits in terms of cost-saving, time-saving, or a reduction in human error.

Enhanced capability in the document management space would be a huge benefit to our organization. As part of our business process, we receive a high volume of returned documents. Managing that high volume, in the millions, can be a challenge. If we had inherent, out of the box tools to drive document manage principles, that would be advantageous for our business.

With respect to the stability, on a scale of one to five I would rate this solution a five. We have not incurred any stability challenges as of yet.

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

I think that the industry as a whole is going in this direction. Knowing the industry as well as we do, we thought it product to get involved with RPA.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward. The underpinning technology is familiar to us.

We performed the implementation ourselves.

I was not involved at this stage, so I am unsure whether other solutions were evaluated.

My advice to other companies who are looking into UiPath is to document how you do what you do. Document your processes first.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use it for delegating access permissions to help desks, for example. We use it to automate certain things, like onboarding new users, or deprovisioning leaving users. When we add somebody to a group, it triggers some kind of automation workflow. Lastly, we use it to sanitize data entry, so to make sure that capital first letter in the street name is used, certain zip codes aren't allowed, others are, etc., so data is controlled.

It helps mitigate the risks. With traditional native active directory delegation, it becomes real messy, real fast. You lose oversight on who has access where. We are an acquisition merger company, so we let go of certain companies and onboard new ones. With native delegations, you lose track of who has access where. With Active Roles, we can always see who has access and what they can do in a very granular way. You can modify the street name but you can't modify the city for example. Or you can modify the picture, but not the names and so that granularity is not available normally.

This product has eliminated a lot of tedious IT tasks, especially when people leave. There are about 10 or 15 actions that Active Roles does, scripted, in the same way, each time. It used to literally be a list of things that the admin would do, like: hide the mailbox, disable user, remove the groups, etc. Also, the auditing history that it keeps is very handy for us. We have a change record of what's been done to a user, who did it, and when they did it, which really helps us out.

We really needed this kind of product for its Active Directory delegation. We could not allow everyone to have native access to our Active Directory. The delegation bit was really the trigger. Automation is also a major reason we use UiPath. There was just so much room for human error that we wanted to script activities rather than rely on the admins to know what to do. This is especially important now that we are outsourcing many activities and dealing with a changing audience. In order to make sure that everybody does the same thing at the same time, tools like these make sure that you do everything in a structured manner.

The value for us is that it resembles the native tools that most people have grown accustomed to. Most people come from another company where they may not have used Active Roles. Active Roles resembles traditional tools like Microsoft's, which is really good because it eases the way people interact with the tool.

AD and AAD management features are really good. They're better than native tools; they offer an added value. They show more fields than traditional tools, such as password age and status of things that you normally wouldn't see. We still have the mailbox and user information all on one screen, whereas in native tools, you need two tools to show that information.

Active Roles works with policies and access templates, as well as workflows, which are really powerful. While it comes with a lot of example policies and access templates, there are zero built-in workflows. I would personally love for it to come with 10 to 20 sample workflows that achieve a certain task but are not enabled by default. In that case, I would be able to just look at those to see how it's done. I could clone them, copy them, and modify them to how I want them. Then I would be good to go, rather than having to reinvent things from scratch.

The solution is very stable. Even if components lose connectivity, or the database dies, as soon as it comes back up, it just reconnects and goes.

It covers all we would like to do. It's scalable; you can make it replicate databases. We don't use a lot of those features, but it is very scalable.

It needed a bit of getting used to, in terms of where you set what, but once you get the hang of it, it's really straightforward.

I think we're just paying for mitigating risks. There is the risk of leaving all authorized access behind and the risk of having Active Directory pollution. With that comes a risk of people getting access that they shouldn't have or having multiple accounts for the same thing. There's no money or value added from using the solution, but there is risk management. That is really what you pay for.

We did consider using the Microsoft solution because it's free and built-in, and that's what everybody does. However, when you grow beyond a certain ping, or scope, you find out that it just does not cut it anymore. We also considered using other tools, but at the time, I think Active Roles was very much alone in this world. I have to admit, now there are other vendors available, which I don't have any personal experience with, but on paper, they seem to do a bit of the same thing. At the time, though, there was simply nothing else that could even come close.

I would rate UiPath as nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement. This is definitely, really up there.

One of the main use cases is stringing together different applications, like a financial system to a database for data manipulation or data extraction. Then, all sorts of little things are added onto that from a process prospective.

From a process perspective, every single implementation that we have done has saved time: Anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of eliminating the process time. There was an example where there was an analyst who was doing a manual comparison process of a bunch of different systems. The use case was that the bot just goes and checks a bunch of systems, then compares everything. They only have to manage the exception, but it almost entirely eliminated the time capacity.

There are pre-built activities, which let you build stuff quickly. It is a functionality where you can record, as a baseline, what a process looks like. Then, you can iterate off of that to build the bot and make it more stable. That is pretty nice because it saves you time.

It also lets you display something very quickly, so you can see exactly how it's going to work.

The product has met expectations in terms of ease of use. There is a lot of stuff going on underneath. In the Studio view, there is a right-hand side where there is a lot of configurable components of activities which are built. Some of those are exposed, and some are not. From a stability standpoint, it would be interesting if more of that was power user available.

Some of the documentation that UiPath has around the technical specifications, from a security perspective, are very factual and comprehensive, but they don't have an audience, like CIOs who need to approve this solution. Therefore, the documentation is one area where I might smooth the process out a bit, since the audience is different from the way the documentation is written as technical specifications.

In a Citrix environment, you can't directly connect to a lot of the applications that you can on a desktop environment, or in a server environment, where it is not a virtual machine and going through a pipe. However, that's just a technical restriction.

I would like it if UiPath could watch someone do a process, then builds the bot, but not in a recorder fashion. I want it to watch someone during their day and observe the processes that they do, then provide an informed assessment of what parts of that could be automated. This is because some people do stuff that they don't even realize could be automated, like an interpretation of people's tasks. Technically, that would be hard to do, but it would make a killer application. This make it a product to install on every single person's computer at a desktop level, or every environment, wherever the process is taking place.

There is some learning curve to using even the initial capabilities. While there are a lot of great tools to help you get up to speed and learn how to do it, I almost think there are two types of tracks which are only being addressed by a single product: 

1. People who are technical and know the stuff which going on behind the scenes. When they use it, they want to have more access and more ways that they can tweak it. 
2. People who have no coding experience, or low coding experience. In this case, it's great, but slightly limited, in terms of the activities which are pre-built and those are very extensive.
   

It would be nice to have a medium between the two or power user concepts, where you can open up all of the back-end. I do know you can do this in UiPath to access the code and take advantage of APIs, when you get into some of the really complex implementations beyond just send an emails and copying and pasting data from one thing to the other, which takes up a lot of people's time. There are additional things behind the scenes that would be great to have access to with UiPath.

It seems very stable. Like in a desktop environment, I can't think of any issues.

For scalability, it requires additional skews to orchestrate everything. While it is an area where I've had less experience, that is the key component to making it scale.

Automation technology at our customers' companies is in its early phases. They are beyond the pilot, but not at scale, which is pretty common.

A lot of the agencies that we work with, where they are doing a pilot, do one-offs and growing exponentially (one to two to three bots). They just keep using it, then reinvesting it. The bot process is pretty quick: We are doing sprints for them in six to 12 weeks, and they are done. 

As a partner, we have a lot of great people at UiPath who we can call and ask about things. 

They've been helpful with understanding what the timeline is for new stuff, like integration and new activity sets. 

From a partnership perspective, like in delivery, they've been really helpful.

Having a free Community Edition makes a difference. As long as you can get it installed, then there is no barrier to playing around with it and seeing what it can do.

The simplicity or complexity of the installation depends on the environment and the CIO's willingness to install it, especially in the Federal space.

It takes no more than six months to get to an ROI that is at least recouping the costs. Time and again, we are just seeing those cost savings get rolled back into doing the next project. It's like a self-funding, revolving process.

UiPath help our customers to eliminate human errors.

I would like to have transparency in pricing. We're creating more functional robotic process automation use cases all over the place. I'm never really clear on what the pricing model is, the skews, and how much of an investment can be made in letting new agencies do any of the following:

• Start to do pilots versus proofs of concept.
• Pricing per bot in production versus Orchestrator costs. 
• Fixed cost versus licensing cost per user. 
• Have access to Studio.

Our customer also evaluate Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere.

It is a really slick product. Just play around with it. It's doable for all skill levels.

The UiPath Academy RPA training is good and easy to use. There is a lot of content there in terms of going from a very basic understanding to being able to do developments. It was one of the first RPA training courses, from anywhere, that I took. I thought it was really good. I has a lot of use cases to practice on.