Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Datamatics TruBot vs NICE Robotic Automation comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Datamatics TruBot
Ranking in Robotic Process Automation (RPA)
31st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NICE Robotic Automation
Ranking in Robotic Process Automation (RPA)
34th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Robotic Process Automation (RPA) category, the mindshare of Datamatics TruBot is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NICE Robotic Automation is 1.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Datamatics TruBot0.6%
NICE Robotic Automation1.0%
Other98.4%
Robotic Process Automation (RPA)
 

Featured Reviews

IS
Business Head at MCS india
Offers good UI but needs to improve its integration capabilities
Speaking about how the tool is useful in automating repetitive tasks in our company, I would say that my company started to collect data with the help of Datamatics while also using its GPS tracking features. The tool's UI is much better than the ones offered by other similar products in the market. I recommend the product to others who plan to use it. I suggest that others use their own method of interrogation since it will help them achieve more growth in their organizations through the use of the tool. I rate the tool a seven and a half out of ten.
Harish G V - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior RPA Developer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Quicker compared to other bots but not very user-friendly
There is a need for NICE to be more user-friendly. It should be designed in such a way that any developer can easily develop bots. For instance, Power Automate provides a good example of a user-friendly design that NICE can learn from. Moreover, in terms of documentation, there is very little available for NICE, making it challenging to implement the bots. So, documentation should be improved as well. There are a lot of additional features that could be included in NICE. As the NICE Robotic Automation claims, it is a low-code solution, but that is not entirely true. They need to concentrate on the prerequisites and building blocks. There should be more options available internally that are easy to use and well-developed.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Ability to calculate the ROI on the jobs that are running."
"The product's initial setup phase is straightforward and easy to use."
"The solution is inexpensive compared to many other solutions in the market."
"NICE is one of the only vendors that does attended and unattended out-of-the-box. Using the unattended processes we've been able to build a "feature library." We break each process down into workable chunks that we can save into a big library. The next time we come to automate a task, we already have chunks of that automation built."
"Provides good automation features."
"It is a kind of desktop automation. Its licensing model is a little bit different. It tends to be individual automation specific to a role. It excels at that."
"What we've done with the RTI client is that we've brought it into a bit more of a 21st-century feel. Our agents have the ability to move around when they want, click into stuff. They use it according to how their conversations go with the customer."
"The deployment of NICE Robotic Automation is easy."
"Through interfaces called Callout (created with HTML code) it is possible to create a strong interactivity with the user. These interfaces can be extremely dynamic in relation to the behavior of a local or remote robotic flow."
"It is easy to deploy. To do the automation in NICE, you really need to use your programming expertise. There are no inbuilt features in it, and you have to create all the required features, which can be very interesting for a programmer."
 

Cons

"There is a learning curve, and some training could be included to bring users up to speed."
"The stability of the product has certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Would like to see more additions to the library."
"There is a need for NICE robotics to be more user-friendly."
"[During the upgrade] any issues, where it couldn't remotely connect to upgrade, I needed the floor plan so I could go to that PC and have a look at it. Often it was either that the PC was switched off or had a bug or some other application needed to be reset."
"Its connectivity with other applications should be improved. In the version that I was using, it would just stop interacting with the other application. Its graphical interface should also be improved. It should have a user-friendly interface. Sometimes, people find it very difficult to understand. One of the obstacles that I faced while programming was that if I needed any kind of help, there wasn't much content on the internet. It can be very difficult to find a solution for a particular issue."
"We haven't found it to be as powerful as some of the other platforms. From a true RPA perspective, it is pretty far behind some of the other solutions. It has emerged as a more desktop automation kind of tool, but it lacks a lot of enterprise features. It is not really a true RPA because of its licensing, which is kind of user-initiated. It would be nice it can be deployed at a more enterprise licensing model versus a user-based model. It didn't have autonomous automation so far, and they have just released this feature. They have kind of hodgepodged a bunch of products together to get there, but it is not as seamless as other solutions."
"There are a few areas for improvement in the installation phase"
"The one thing I'd like to see, and NICE is already heavily investing in it, is improvement in the user interface itself. They call it the Designer and it's what the developers use. It is a bit clunky; that is the polite way to put it. I'd like to see it be a bit more user-friendly, a bit more intuitive, and to move to something a bit more web-based..."
"The solution is not as intuitive as it could be and integrating took a lot of time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is expensive."
"As per my understanding, UiPath has a much lesser cost than NICE, but I am not sure."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Robotic Process Automation (RPA) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Recreational Facilities/Services Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise4
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Datamatics TruBot?
The product's initial setup phase is straightforward and easy to use.
What needs improvement with Datamatics TruBot?
The stability of the product has certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required. The integration capabilities of the product have some concerns and need improvements. The p...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

TruBot
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Company, IndusInd Bank
HelpLine, Telefonica Spain, Banca Popolare Di Sondrio
Find out what your peers are saying about Datamatics TruBot vs. NICE Robotic Automation and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.