UiPath Platform Reviews

I work on database automation. We just delivered a dynamic workflow in an Excel automation as well. We work on many types of formulas. In addition, we develop physical automation. For example, we created a process that posts many photos at once on many groups.

We are able to produce output with UiPath in less time. Where a manual process takes one to two hours, we can develop a UiPath solution that takes 15 minutes. In terms of saving time, one bot has saved 60 to 70 percent of the time the task used to take. We have also seen human error reduced by about 60 percent. 

We have automated processes with 20 to 25 bots, and our organization is very happy with UiPath.

It's easy to go with UiPath. It's user-friendly, and any IT person will find it easy to use. It can be learned in six months to one year.

Also, we can use Orchestrator with Action Center for end-to-end automation. With Orchestrator, we can schedule automations.

I would like to see the setup improved. First we install it, then we log in with Orchestrator, and then we have to log in to the UiPath website. I would like all this to be merged into one setup.

I have been using UiPath for 2.7 years.

The stability of UiPath is a nine out of 10.

The scalability is between eight and nine out of 10.

Support can take a lot of time, two to three days to receive a response.

Neutral

I have developed Excel automations with Power Automate.

We are using the Community Edition of UiPath and it is deployed on our servers. We use it in one location in one department. It was not a complex process to install it, although there was a little bit of complexity to it.

If there is any activity or anything changes in the environment, maintenance of UiPath can be required.

We have saved both time and money and have definitely seen return on our investment.

The price of UiPath is not too expensive or too cheap. It's in between.

We have four people involved in deploying automation: one developer, a team lead, and two DevOps developers.

My recommendation is to learn flow development.

Our primary use case for UiPath is robotic process automation and automation fabric with document understanding AI.

Usually, after six to twelve months, our customers start implementing end-to-end processing with UiPath but they often start off with small tasks.

There is a clear value in being part of the UiPath community. We get money from UiPath for discounted licenses. Our customers hire us to implement their professional visions, and we're paid by the hour.

UiPath improves our customers' organizations. The effects of this growth usually start small. For example, we may notice that specific records are transferred in less time or with less manpower. Then, as the growth continues, those people become more involved in all aspects of the company.

The solution has a large impact on minimizing the on-premises footprint for our customers.

The Academic courses are vast. It provides our clients with the opportunity to start on their own and become somewhat independent. We use the courses as a huge resource to train our customers.

Usually, after six to 12 months, we start introducing our clients to more complex processes where the document understanding or AI fabric capabilities of UiPath are useful.

UiPath speeds up the digital transformation for our clients.

It helps reduce human error. This is mostly seen after UiPath has been implemented because people are not usually willing to admit their mistakes.

UiPath definitely frees up on average three to five percent of employee time per month. We have had small instances where the solution replaced a full SE with only one process.

The solution can reduce costs in retraining people on old or mundane processes, and it can also reduce costs by automating certain processes. This in turn can free up resources so that we don't have to invest in retraining people to do those same processes again. Automation eliminates the need to hire new people to do the job or carry out the process. After 18 to 24 months, many of our clients find that they don't need to hire more people to keep up with their growing business.

The simplicity of creating automation from a low code level is the most valuable feature of the solution.

UiPath's built-in automation is very easy to use. Our organization educates and provides lessons on how to use its automation and the feedback is that UiPath is easy once the introduction is complete. The solution is comparable to other software in this market.

There has been a huge improvement in Linux, Microsoft, and Mac support recently. However, we still struggle with the implementation in Citrix environments. The solution works with Citrix, but there is room for improvement. 

UiPath releases a lot of new features multiple times throughout the year causing our customers to fall behind. It would be fine if there was only one release a year.

I have been using UiPath for six years.

We are a technical partner, so we have direct support. If we post the questions well formed to the support team, we get a quick answer from them.

Positive

We use Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, Power Automate, and our own products during the typical analysis quadrants. UiPath is the solution we use 95 percent of the time.

The main difference between UiPath and other RPA tools is the vision. While other tools focus on automating tasks, UiPath focuses on developing citizens who can automate tasks. This means that UiPath is the best tool for organizations that want to invest in their employees' skills.

The initial setup is straightforward. I give the ease of deployment a ten out of ten.

The implementation is completed in-house.

UiPath is not the cheapest solution, it's more or less the most expensive one, but we get what we pay for. I give the pricing an eight out of ten for its competitiveness.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

We use UiPath to make processes. In addition to UiPath Studio, the platform that develops processes, UiPath includes other applications like Orchestrator, AI Center, Test Suite, Action Center, etc. 

I had the opportunity to work with UiPath Studio to develop and deliver processes to clients and scheduled them in production using the Orchestrator. I had the chance to automate many platforms in Excel, emails, et cetera. I developed around 20 processes.

I work with many medium-sized and large enterprises and a few small ones. Typically, the clients send us their PCs, and we work on their infrastructure. My clients usually have many departments, and all of them use UiPath. I use Orchestrator in the cloud, but clients, like banks, prefer the on-prem version because of security constraints. For me, there is no significant difference between the Orchestrator in the cloud and on-prem. We can schedule and maintain robots. They have essential common functionalities.

I work with many clients who recognize the impact and return on investment from using UiPath to develop automated processes. We always use the UiPath Academy courses. You can get a certification, and when we have questions that can't be answered on the forum or YouTube, we return to the courses. The courses are a way for the developers to understand the nuances of the product or do some workshops. The Academy combines theory and practice for each application, and in the end, we get a certificate. 

The AI Center can optimize many hours and lines of code. You can train your data on the Orchestrator in place with patent code, which takes more time. I compared the custom AI model and UiPath's presets, and we saved many hours. For example, my client had a difficult process that took lots of time to develop with Python and integrate into UiPath Studio. At first, they decided not to create this process with UiPath, but ultimately, they could develop it using Document Understanding with OCR and AI Center.

UiPath cuts down on human error and has included many updates in the latest release to reduce errors. Generally, our robots are rules-based so that we can see an important reduction in human errors. Automation generally speeds up tasks by about 50% because a person can control the robots in place to do all the jobs that robots do.

The amount of employee time saved depends on the bot. For example, if the robot is scheduled daily, and the task takes three hours, it frees up three hours. It depends on the complexity of the job and the time an employee spends on it. 

Enterprise clients can potentially save millions of dollars or euros per month. It depends on the client and the complexity of the process. We have a center of excellence that develops around 100 processes in large organizations. Smaller enterprises save a little bit less. In terms of cost savings, it's about 60 percent.

UiPath has a large user community that shares information. We can help each other find solutions, and the community publishes custom open-source libraries to help other UiPath developers. Members of the community also organize many events. Throughout the year, people from UiPath present new products and updates to the community, and community members help educate us about the latest features and how to use them in our existing robots.

I like the structure of the selectors. They're robust. With other software like Automation Anywhere, we always have problems with recorders, plugins, et cetera. UiPath is more powerful and efficient. UiPath Studio has features like the Excel package, selectors, and recorders. 

There are also many types of recording features. UiPath Studio's most interesting feature is the REFramework. UiPath's frameworks help developers handle exceptions efficiently.

Another critical feature of UiPath is end-to-end automation, starting with the design part of the process with many applications like Automation Hub, Task Capture, and Task Mining. We can use Task Capture in the community version, and they help with the design and conception of products at the start of the project. 

Then, we can use UiPath Studio, UiPath StudioX, or UiPath Web to develop the process. Afterward, we can use Orchestrator to schedule and maintain our developed processes. Finally, we have other products that can help us integrate business end users, such as UiPath Insights or UiPath Apps. With UiPath, we can assist automation in many industries or areas of applications.

I used the Document Understanding feature and developed a custom model to use in the community version. I had the opportunity to test the AI Center. The AI Center can make our robotic process classic RPA. 

AI Center allows us to evaluate and add intelligence to our classic RPA developers. We can add our custom classification model with drag-and-drop functionality in UiPath Studio. I like the integration between AI Center and UiPath Studio. Many of our clients are mature in RPA and want to use the AI Center or integrate artificial intelligence into their IT code.

The reporting part of Orchestrator could be improved. For example, UiPath could automatically email us if there are errors. Adding this feature would help us.

I have used UiPath for three years.

UiPath is stable. 

UiPath is scalable.

I rate UiPath support eight out of 10. They're available when you need them, and you can schedule meetings with them, too.

Positive

I also use Automation Anywhere for other clients, but I prefer UiPath because of the robust selectors and AI elements. UiPath can handle exceptions better, whereas Automation Anywhere lacks REFrameworks, which helps us handle exceptions. It's more difficult. 

UiPath has end-to-end automation, with a suite of other products that help us digitize internal and enterprise processes. UiPath has other advantages, like the community and the forum. 

Deploying UiPath is easy. It takes about 20 minutes or less to get UiPath running. You find the AI and download the latest version, then you start. The newest version is connected directly with the Orchestrator. 

One person can usually install it by themselves, but it depends on the number of computers. If you install it on one computer, that takes 30 minutes, but if we have more, you might need more people and more time. After deployment, UiPath requires some maintenance. The number of people necessary varies. For example, in some sectors, we have a team for maintenance and one for development, but developers might maintain their own processes in some instances.  

I don't have hard numbers on hand, but our clients generally see a 50-60% ROI. 

The UiPath license is a little expensive, but we get a lot of good features for the price. 

I rate UiPath eight out of 10. UiPath is the leader. It's the best automation software I've used. UiPath has rich documentation and a large user community. Developers can always find help in the forum. UiPath is a robust software solution that yields a high return on investment.

I recommend first trying UiPath Studio and UiPath products in general to experience all the features. Sometimes, we don't realize all the available features to help us solve our problems.

We use it for admissions policy and also for other financial items such as 1099 reporting from the IRS and things of that nature. There are some manual refreshes of systems and Excel documents that we have automated.

It is currently deployed on-prem, but we are looking at the cloud option. We are using version 2019, which is probably one of the oldest ones. It's pretty old. We're looking from a perspective of whether we upgrade it before we move to the cloud or whether we move to the cloud and upgrade.

We have seen quite a bit of benefit. We used to hire temp staff labor in order to do our admission policy, and now, we don't have to hire them. That would be five part-time people that would come in seasonally. For three or four months, we would have five people just cranking away the admission work. We don't need that anymore because of automation.

There have been time and financial savings. On the other side of the house, some of them are attended bots. We've saved the organization about 140,000 clicks. People don't have to click 140,000 times anymore. As a small estimate, we saved the organization about 250 hours last year. If everything goes to plan, this year, we're looking to save about 450 hours from the financial side of the house. We're only scratching the surface of it, and there is always room to grow.

We're still working through it. We recently stood up our system developer space. We have about 16 processes. We're still new at it and still in the beginning phases. We're really looking forward to pushing that envelope. Currently, we have a hybrid of attended and unattended automations. It's about an even split.

The GUI is valuable, and it's extremely stable. I've had six or seven Studios open at the same time working on different things and nothing has crashed on it. It's very stable software.

I love the community. The community is awesome. That has been very helpful. It provides value in terms of just being able to bounce ideas and understand. Sometimes, I try to do one thing, and I just want to know how to do one thing, but that's where the community can help broaden and look at it from a different perspective.

They say that everybody can do it, but not everybody can do it. You need to have some form of technological understanding about it, and just because we can automate something doesn't mean we should automate something. That's where I think there's a marketing thing. I understand where they're going with it, but it's not necessarily how real life is in my perspective.

I am not looking for any additional features. I haven't even used all the features. I'm still learning the platform as it stands and figuring out what's still available. 

I have been using it since 2019.

From a system perspective, it's stable on my end. It just works. That's the best part about it. It just works.

Scalability gets a little bit sticky. That could be just because of where we sit in the organization, I don't manage that relationship of licenses. I only get so many licenses and I'm like, "Well, can I get more?" It's definitely a limiting factor, but I don't know if it's us limiting it from a cost perspective. 

I haven't had to use their support. I go to the UiPath community for most of my questions. 

We used Microsoft Power Automate. It was okay. I totally prefer UiPath.

I was involved in its initial setup. UiPath was not complex, but we, as an organization, made it complex. 

We used a partner AKOA that got bought out by Roboyo not too long ago. So, we did use a partner to implement it. In terms of whether it was smooth or not, it was okay. Our school made it hard.

Our experience with them was good and helpful. It was a good way to go through it. Now that we know more, I would've changed the engagement slightly to get a little bit more consulting in the sense of the COE, governance, and other similar things around it. That's because for the most part, getting the system up and running was relatively simple, but now, with the whole other pieces of it, we're starting to feel some of that effect. It's now about how do we look at it from a different angle.

We definitely have a return on investment in terms of hours and soft cost perspective. We are saving 250 hours and don't have to hire five temps. I can't give the metrics for ROI, but from a time savings perspective, ROI is definitely huge.

We did evaluate other options. We evaluated Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and UiPath. It was about a year-long evaluation period between all of them, and UiPath was clearly the winner. It was clearly out there as the leader in that space, and that's why we chose them. 

From our perspective, the GUI was really helpful and very different from the others. Automation Anywhere touted more of just invoicing, but we didn't want it for invoicing. We wanted it for multiple things. UiPath really showed the breadth of what you can expand across.

To someone evaluating UiPath, I would definitely advise finding a partner. Find a partner with whom you can partner and who understands the use cases of what you're trying to do and achieve from an organizational perspective. Without that, you're not going to get an ROI. 

I would also advise managing expectations. It's fairly easy to use, but it still requires technical abilities. Don't think that it's something that you can just plug and play and do whatever you want. It's not going to work that way. It's more about the person and the change in mindset. If a person is open to an automation mindset, RPA is a really cool function, and UiPath solves that particular mindset. Without it, it's an uphill battle. Even from our perspective, from an education side of the house, getting our educators to be okay with automation is tricky.

We haven't yet used UiPath's AI functionality. We are definitely looking into it to see how we can start taking advantage of the AI pieces of it and advance that side of the house. Currently, we are trying to change the automation mindset. I'm a big RPA evangelist in our organization, and I am trying to promote things like automation. People are on board with the thought of it but not necessarily on board with the action of it. So, we really have to understand their process when we get into their process, and some people are apprehensive to share that information. It's the other parts of the piece that we have to deal with.

We have used UiPath Academy courses. It was useful to know the use of the product, the use of the GUI, understand how things move and change, where the checkmark boxes you need to check are, and all other uses. Now with the new versioning, it looks like a more curated function. It's a lot nicer. Previously, UiPath Academy was just a bunch of courses, and you didn't know where to start. The curation for developers or users is going to help people navigate through the UiPath Academy.

Overall, I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten.

We're a consultancy and I am the strategic architect. I have implemented the product at 25 different client locations spanning multiple industries. Their RPA requirements range from pretty standard, bread-and-butter workflows that navigate an application and follow some business rules, to more sophisticated ones that are integrating Document Understanding and a little bit of chatbot.

I have deployed it on multiple application stacks, including out-of-the-box SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, and some specialty, third-party products like DNA, Encompass, LendingQB, and others.

We have helped companies reshape their resources. That's a part of the benefits. They want to put automation in place because they want to change their headcount and not have to do those rote, mundane business processes.

We have been able to show enhancements in resourcing. A very good example is that we built a process for a client who had to spend three or four days a month doing a really lousy process involving 3,000 payment transactions, every month. The robot is able to execute that workflow in a half day, so we freed up two and a half to three and a half days where he does not have to do it. To him, this was a huge lifesaver.

It has also reduced human error, for sure. That's a positive selling point. When we build workflows for our customers we include business reports and audit logs. We typically add a status flag for a record so that every record that is transacted has traceability through the audit log. We also have a status report, and that shows how many records the workflow executed, how many were successful, and how many failed. We see a range where between 65 and 90 percent of the records go straight through. That means all the business rules were met and the process was completed for those records. That shows that they're identifying a much smaller subset of errors and that they can rely on the robot to successfully complete the end-to-end transaction. And whatever is leftover requires human touch.

That changes the dynamic in operations. They don't have to concentrate on every single record, but only somewhere between 10 and 35 percent of all records may have to be handled manually. It shows them which ones had errors, the ones that did not meet the business rules, and they know which ones to concentrate on. That's a feedback loop that helps them decide if they need to add a business rule or change a business rule to get to a higher percentage of throughput.

In terms of employee time, I have documented situations where clients might have had 10 people working on half a dozen business processes. We've implemented IPA—intelligent process automation—and then they only need three or four people, so they can redeploy those other folks to other places. It saves them money because they don't have the FTE costs they had before for those processes.

From a development point of view, the Studio tool as the basis of componentized architecture has been a really critical part. You get out-of-the-box, componentized architecture to jumpstart or accelerate development and that's a very key feature. 

When talking about deployment, you have a very robust infrastructure to manage your automations, the robots, and how they can be configured, deployed, executed, monitored, and maintained. 

When it comes to process discovery, it has excellent front-end tools and capabilities vis-à-vis Task Capture and Automation Hub. 

And at the back end, the notion of botting sites to monitor and manage your robotic infrastructure and reporting on it is pretty great. These are all pretty good tools.

The ease of use is because of the UI's capabilities. The fact that it has a .NET Framework, from a developer's point of view, makes it a very easy product to jumpstart into. But what is key is the ability to do really fine development activities. You really can get to a nuanced level of development for complicated and robust workflows. The tools are definitely well constructed to allow you that kind of flexibility. 

A really good example would be if you are doing something with OCR to read a PDF. You can vary the OCR engines and test them out to determine which OCR engine will give you the best results. That's pretty good because you do get into situations where one engine may work better than another.

We can also implement end-to-end automation and that is critically important. We always strive for what I call "straight-through" processing, where we're trying to handle all the use cases based on business rules. We're not always successful, but that's not a bad thing. If we can take 60 percent of your processes and automate them with straight-through processing, where everything works, your exceptions are a much smaller work set. That has had a significant impact on clients. For one of my clients, where we have worked very hard, they have better than 90 percent "throughput," meaning that 90 percent of their transactions go completely through the automated workflows. The client has been incredibly pleased with that.

We also use the UiPath Academy all the time, in two ways. Internally, we avail ourselves of all the courses. It's especially important to understand new updates and releases. It's a great place to go to understand what those new features are. That is of real value. 

But the Academy is also a good starting point when I want my engineers to be certified. They can jumpstart that process by going to the Academy and making sure they know how the product works. They follow through on that program and complete the training. Once they finish that, we try to get a project or two under their belts, and then have them take the certification exams.

One of the chief problems in all of our implementations is "application sensitivity." If an automation involves a webpage or Outlook, every item on that screen—the menu bar, the actual document, an attachment, a field—has a selector so that workflow can work correctly. UiPath does a very good job, whether for legacy systems or newer systems, of using selectors so that you can build applications that have discrete functionality. 

But what happens when a selector breaks? That means that something has changed in the application. This is especially true with SaaS or third-party applications. They make one change to a field and the selector breaks and that means it has to be touched and fixed. 

UiPath could do a better job of enveloping selectors to make them less fragile. There are techniques that can be used to achieve that, even without a system-related improvement, but they are not out-of-the-box. That is the one area that is the biggest pain point. It happens all the time.

They should reduce selector sensitivity and improve remediation when one does break. 

I don't know how they would do it, but if the change that caused the break were a relatively minor thing, they should somehow have it automatically recalibrated. I'm sure it's a tough problem, but clients complain to me about that all the time. I have to explain to them, "Well, the application changed." They'll say, "Well, we're looking at it, we don't see anything." It's often true that you can't see it, but the selector underneath broke and that means something was done but, visually, an end user would not see it if it was a minor change. So I'd like UiPath to find a way to "desensitize" selectors.

I have been using UiPath for four years.

It is very stable. There are no questions about that.

There are absolutely no issues with scalability. We're using this with multiple clients.

The new robot polling is very helpful. We are using it effectively for clients and that technical capability is a great enhancement. The modern folder profile gets us there as well. 

We're very pleased with the cloud-enabled product sets. I push that with as many clients as I can because it's the easiest to implement. On the cloud side, there were issues at one point with their licensing management, but that has finally been smoothed out and that makes life easier. If you want to add another product, as long as it gets licensed, boom, it's there. I don't have to think about it. Overall, the scalability is great.

The environments that we work in are client-driven, but they can have multiple locations and geographies. We have a couple of clients where the implementation is in the US but it is supporting Europe. And we now have a client that needs to be supported in South America. We are cloud-enabled for them and the product works great. And while it has nothing to do with UiPath, there are some latency issues over the network, so we may have to rethink how we deploy in different hemispheres. But we know that UiPath tech can support that.

We will lean on their technical support when we have exhausted our capabilities. Most of our issues have been in the Document Understanding sphere, especially in custom model development, although sometimes there have been issues with it in out-of-the-box systems. For all of my IPA projects that include Document Understanding, I try to convince the customer to buy Premium Support, because regular support could take two to three days to finally get to the right answer. With Premium Support, I'll get it in a day or a day and a half, and that can make a big difference.

I rate their support at seven out of 10 because the initial triaging takes the longest time, and that's one of the greatest concerns for me. If you have regular support, as part of the triage process they will tell you to look at frequently asked questions, but of course, we've already done that. Overall, the FAQs are one of the weak points in the fabric of available resources. We're putting in a support ticket because we haven't found what we need. That level of support is very generic and you really have to knock hard on their door hard and say, "We've done that already. We haven't found our answer. We need to talk to an engineer." Level-one support is usually too junior, but when we get to the next level, we finally start to get better answers. Level two is good, but level one and that triaging can be painful.

We rely on the partner network, and UiPath has been an excellent partner. We do use the community as a reference point, but we don't get a lot of value from using the FAQs.

On the flip side, I have used the Community editions of all the products. That's a big plus, especially when a client doesn't want to put any money into it upfront because they're very nervous. We use the Community edition to prove the point. In that respect, the Community edition and the forums do become helpful.

Neutral

I started with Automation Anywhere in a previous job. I like both products. Both it and UiPath are excellent. Going with UiPath really had nothing to do with a problem with Automation Anywhere. When I came to my current company, they had already decided to go with UiPath. They had done a few projects with UiPath and that set the tone going forward.

As a consultant in a global practice, I do have a couple of Automation Anywhere projects going on. I also have a project that is using Power Automate. 

Our preferred IPA solution is UiPath, but clients drive that decision. I had one client who said, out of the gate, "No. We're using Automation Anywhere. No questions asked." And I said, "Alright. It's a good product." 

But as a company, we lean toward UiPath as a starting point and they've been an excellent partner, and I say that wholeheartedly.

Deploying the solution is straightforward. It involves a low level of complexity and less effort.

I have a separate DevOps team that actually does the build-out of the environment. They're separate from the developer team. DevOps does the implementation. They'll talk to the client's IT department directly and work on all the details of setting up the infrastructure and they'll get it ready for us. Then the developers take over.

We do lean on UiPath support in some niche issues areas, but for the most part, my engineers are pretty well qualified.

In terms of the solution's AI functionality, such as Document Understanding and chatbots, we no longer advertise ourselves as doing RPA. We advertise ourselves as an IPA shop—intelligent process automation. The focal point of that is Document Understanding and the DRUID AI Chatbot capabilities. We're getting an awful lot of Document Understanding projects and we use our sandbox to pump our clients' data into the Document Understanding frameworks and intelligent form factors to prove that the solution works. We really want to go for the bigger ticket items that require Document Understanding.

When dealing with Document Understanding, we are introducing a new capability to the client. We train them on how to use the tool. That is a definite change in the client's skill sets and it does pay for itself in the long run. There is a delicate balance. The investment cost is always the tricky part, but once clients start seeing their data coming through automatically, the light bulb comes on.

Since UiPath became a publicly traded company, the flexibility and variability on pricing have really gone down a lot. It's tougher to get a better deal out of them. I'm not saying it can't happen, but as a publicly traded company, they're not the same company that they were when they were private and first growing. It's understandable. They have stockholders to answer to.

The top vendors are

1. UiPath
2. Automation Anywhere
3. Blue Prism (which we don't do a lot of work in)
4. Power Automate, only because it's Microsoft.

I encourage people to look at the review and evaluation sites to help them start getting an idea of what is available. Then I say, "Here is some actual work we've done with UiPath. This is our actual experience. Check the marketplace data that's out there," because there's a lot of information they can avail themselves of. That way, they can be satisfied that what our company is recommending is valid.

I may point out some of the key questions for them to look into. If they're trying to scale, what are the business problems they're trying to solve? If they're thinking about a Document Understanding requirement, they should compare what's going out there with other intelligent document processing capabilities and take it from there.

As a partner, what has been helpful is that UiPath offers a not-for-resale (NFR) license. These are fully loaded licenses and ours is cloud-enabled. We're using them for PoCs very effectively. There is a lot of great value in them. I have a couple of projects now where we've asked clients to send us their sample data, their documents. We have our sandbox ready and I have one or two developers knock that process out with a turnaround of one or two days. We can bring it back to the client and say, "Here's your data and this is what we were able to do with it." That is very effective.

I really appreciate the way the product has been architected. It's a robust product set. We have built custom models with the UiPath toolset. We've had several use cases where we had to do so because there was no out-of-the-box solution, and the tools are great.

The AI functionality has enabled us to automate more processes overall. They are the more difficult projects to do because Document Understanding is not a pure, out-of-the-box solution. There is work involved in it but we've been successful at it. Once we get the models well-trained, the client starts to really see real value. They're seeing the straight-through processing that they're trying to achieve.

The client I mentioned earlier, the one with the 90 percent "throughput," is an example. That automation is the result of custom models. We worked hard on that and we were very successful. The client has been very happy.

Overall, the way I would rate UiPath depends on the support level I have to use. If it's Standard Support, it's a five or six out of 10. If I have Premium Support, it's a seven or eight.

We mostly use it for unattended bots. We are a construction company. Our RPA team does more of the complex processes for users. We take high-end complex items, that are redundant, off of the users' hands, then we host it on our servers.

We have a bunch of unattended processes, about 284 processes.

RPA isn't necessarily taking away tasks from employees, but rather moving them from processing-type employees to analysts. For example, if we had billers doing a very redundant task, then we moved that to RPA. Then, the billers do more customer face-to-face work and analysis, e.g., solutions through Salesforce. So, we have those employees who were previously billers move up to better positions where they can do more analysis and human interaction.

The solution has reduced human error. We don't need to go back and fix stuff. Customer representation is also huge. Quality of work is one of our mission statements. Having that repetitive test always being 100% every single day, month, and quarter, and whenever we send specific invoices from our server support, has been really helpful. It increases that quality formation.

There are a lot of job positions that we never really thought that would get created. Freeing up those experienced employees from sitting down and processing a lot of stuff throughout the whole day and moving them up to customers, we started discovering new talents and skills, especially with the younger employees since you are basically freeing up their time to discover new skills that they weren't even aware of. You are investing in them, showing customers that you have a new generation of fine employees who can do a bunch of new skills out-of-the-box.

The orchestration is the most valuable feature, e.g., how stuff can be organized. This is in addition to the fact that we try to move stuff to an unattended base where there is no user interaction. We are moving more to 100% automation rather than putting a human in the loop.

The UiPath Academy is mostly used only by technology associates and power users in each department who show interest in RPA. The academy has improved on the onboarding system that we have for RPA. So, if we see potential with someone, whether it is interns, power users, or even IT professionals around our department, then the UiPath Academy is definitely a good way to go. It kind of eases up the onboarding when determining who is outstanding or could potentially join our RPA teams.

The biggest value of the UiPath Academy is the ease of use. A lot of different platforms can be too complex. The user-friendly platform definitely helps with the ease of its steps. 

While it is the best tool ever, we decided that the user interaction might not actually be the greatest thing ever. 

I have been using the solution for three years.

I am very happy with the stability of it. 

I wish that there might be a better, easier method of updating our platform, especially for on-prem. I believe most of their customers are cloud-based. So, they don't have to worry about updating their Studio versions or Orchestrator. Being on-prem, it can be difficult because we must reach out to have that version. We can't just plan on our own. We are always at least a six-month step back versus the current version.

We have been scaling it as much as we can, especially with how we are trying to scale how big our team is as well as trying to control that specific workspace and workforce that we have.

There are currently five developers using it.

There were a couple of times with the on-premises version that there were complications, since it is not on UiPath's cloud. We have had a lot of complications where we are dead in water. There were a couple of conditions where we weren't able to get someone up to speed on whatever. The support is not as quick to respond as we had hoped. 

We did talk to our account executives about this. It is definitely a work in progress. I know that they have recommended that we move to the cloud, but it is not attractive enough for us to see if it is actually worth moving to the cloud.

We have been with UiPath from the start. We used to have a lot of in-house C# libraries that we curated. RPA was like overpowered macros similar to what we already had. That is why we knew how to deal with it. 

The initial setup was straightforward. We did it through the on-premises by connecting our SQL database, etc. 

The deployment took around three hours.

The initial setup was with their tech support, and that was definitely great. After that, if we had any hiccups, that was where the complications happened.

The main focus was improving efficiency. Once you focus more on redundant paths, having a bot doing it over and over again, that eliminates human error every now and then. There is definitely a huge ROI in that. Our main focus was low-hanging fruit. By low hanging fruit, I mean the redundant processes that users are just annoyed by when they go in every day and have to do it. There has definitely been a huge ROI because we are trying to free up a lot of the project managers for construction to do more focused stuff there rather than job cost details.

We have probably saved the time of 10 full-time employees. For daily tasks, we are saving an average of four hours per employee.

It is one of those things where you pay for convenience. Pricing-wise, UiPath is definitely way more expensive than other solutions that we have seen, especially since we also have Microsoft Power Automate, which is one of the latest tools. UiPath is on the higher end, but it is one of those decisions, "Is it worth the investment? How much are you getting as an ROI?" That is usually how the conversation goes.

Back then, the main competitor was Automation Anywhere, who wasn't necessarily as user-friendly. The main idea was that UiPath was more user-friendly with more forums. It seems like there was a community for it. Whereas, Automation Anywhere was a bit more complex. 

We are using a bunch of other tools to also see the differences. Everything runs so quickly that technology always needs to be up to speed. Companies, like UiPath, are always running so fast to compete in this area. We are also trying to see who is actually the best. UiPath has definitely shown us that, but it also comes with its price.

They are always trying to look for, as much as possible, in-house creation of back-end processes. This means less clicking and tapping on the keyboard for the robot, which is always better. UiPath definitely blends all that together, which is great. It is literally bridging all our platforms together, which is what I love about it.

With UiPath and RPA, the sky's the limit. There is potential for a bunch of things that you can do. When we started, as a construction company, we were thinking that RPA might not be as useful as we might think and make a bigger difference than our in-house solutions. When RPA came out, we thought it was mostly for companies like EY and PWC, e.g., more for financial auditing since there is so much data. However, we definitely benefit from it as a construction company. There is so much potential, whether it is low-hanging fruit or high complexity. It is definitely a win-win for any company, whatever industry you are working in.

I would rate UiPath as eight out of 10.

We have a lot of use cases for UiPath including automation of processes and reconciliation.

Building automation using UiPath is easy.

It helps our operational efficiency by saving time and reducing costs. Manually processes that take an hour can be done in five minutes using UiPath.

The most beneficial feature of UiPath for our workflows is the seamless database connectivity.

UiPath facilitates end-to-end automation for well-defined processes. This eliminates interruptions caused by manual steps within the workflow.

The UiPath User Community is large. There is a lot of interaction and sharing making it easy for us to find answers to any issues we may have.

The biggest benefits we have seen using UiPath are the cost and time savings.

It has helped save around ten percent of costs.

The UiPath Academy courses are great. They have a lot of helpful courses.

UiPath has reduced human error by 70 percent.

UiPath excels at integrating with a wide variety of systems, including on-premises systems, legacy systems, and web pages.

The high cost of UiPath licensing significantly reduces the value we get from the solution. A large portion of the cost savings we achieve are negated by the licensing fees.

I have been using UiPath for four years.

I would rate the stability of Uipath eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Uipath eight out of ten.

The technical support is great with the premium service for enterprise-level clients.

Positive

I'm certified in Automation Anywhere and currently use Microsoft Power Automate. However, UiPath seems better suited for enterprise-level automation. Unlike Power Automate, UiPath is system-agnostic. It can connect to any system, regardless of platform, making it highly versatile. On the other hand, Microsoft Power Automate prioritizes integration with other Microsoft products. Connecting legacy systems with Power Automate often requires purchasing premium connectors and potentially hiring an expert for configuration.

The deployment took around two weeks to complete.

We engaged Deloitte as our consulting firm for the UiPath implementation. While we handled a significant portion of the on-premises work ourselves, their team provided some technical assistance. Overall, I would rate their services a six out of ten.

UiPath promises a 50 percent reduction in operational costs, but the high licensing fees may consume most of those savings.

I would rate the cost of UiPath eight out of ten with ten being the most expensive.

I would rate UiPath eight out of ten.

We have around 15 users that work with UiPath for the attended bots.

UiPath Orchestrator requires regular maintenance and updates.

I recommend UiPath. The only negative area of UiPath is the licensing fees. 

I am a consultant working on RPA solutions in general. UiPath is one of the solutions that I am using.

The use cases depend on the clients. I have done automation of sending mail with invoices in it. We have used it for analyzing PDF documents, getting information out of these documents, preparing in three different languages depending on the client, and sending invoices by email.

We are also checking VAT numbers on the EU side to validate the client's VAT numbers and related data. We have automated the generation of reports out of SAP for two different managers and teams. We have also automated including specific signature images within PDF documents and sending them to the related service or email address.

We have mainly used UiPath to focus on processes related to the finance department. The targeted processes are the ones that are the most repeatable and require a lot of effort but there is no real focus and attention from the user. Because of its repeatable nature, the risk is that users do not pay attention to the process itself and make mistakes.

Generally, we do not implement end-to-end automation. The idea is not to automate an end-to-end process but to automate a part of the process that takes a lot of time and resources. That is the focus point, so it is not a matter of having an end-to-end process implemented. It may occur, but often, it is a part of the process where the focus needs to be reliability or time and resource consumption.

The benefit for our clients is time and reliability. They quite often see the benefits in terms of the reliability of executing the process, even reporting mistakes or errors that happen during the execution of the process. That is something quite valuable for them.

Usually, it takes our clients at least one month to realize the benefits. If the processes are executed on a daily basis, then it is quite fast, but there are processes that are triggered every month or every quarter. In that case, it will take at least a month or a quarter to see the benefits. Once it is executed, there is quite an immediate benefit. On the other hand, it takes time to analyze the process because often processes or procedures that are written are not in sync with what is executed by the user. We have to modify them. Often, by questioning the end user, you end up finding the shortcuts and implementing them, so the analysis takes more time, and the implementation takes less time.

UiPath reduces human error. That is one of the main reasons why automation is done for customers. Two main reasons for automation are reliability and resource availability. 

UiPath saves time for our customers, but it is hard to know how much time it has saved because it varies from process to process. For example, the process of validating the VAT numbers on the EU website used to take two or three resources every quarter, whereas now, it is reduced to less than half an hour. These time savings are valuable, but the added value is reliability.

UiPath has not had a lot of impact on the digital transformation because the processes that are requested to be automated are already digital. The reason for automation is to speed up the process or make it more reliable. There is no real impact on the digitization of processes.

In terms of the reduction in the on-premises footprint, I am not always aware of the eventual use of the processes that I am implementing for the clients with the bots. I see that some of the bots are not used anymore because they have their own application that includes a big part of what has been automated on their side. It depends on the way they use it and how often they use it because I have bots that are running every day, and I also have bots that are running once a quarter. The ones that are running every quarter are harder to evaluate because people are not always able to see the resources released from executing those processes. Because they are executed every quarter, they are usually not measured. Our clients generally go for automation for reliability.

Specifically in the recent versions, the ability to change the interface is valuable. One of my clients had to upgrade the SAP version and move to a web-based UI. This was handled by isolating the UI interaction within the library for the targeted SAP on the client side. I upgraded that library to handle the web-based, and the bots worked fine after that without modifying anything in them. The usage of libraries is very important for me because it helps a lot in this kind of upgrade, specifically because SAP is used across the company. It is impacting a lot of different businesses within the company.

It is quite intuitive and fully handled by a visual interface. It is no big deal for me. I have been a developer in the past, and I have used Visual Basic and C#. If I need to specify something exceptional, it can be done. It is not a big deal. For me, it is very easy. There is a competitor with an open-source solution called OpenRPA, but for me, UiPath is far better and more intuitive.

There should be the ability to customize the building blocks instead of having to specify everything in every step. We should be able to combine these building blocks to make specific processes faster.

There should also be some kind of templates, similar to Power Automate. Power Automate provides templates for a specific context.

I have been using UiPath for two and a half years.

I am absolutely satisfied with its stability.

I did not have to worry about it so much because usually, my clients want to take control of their bots. They want to execute it when they want, so I have had no experience with the scalability of UiPath. 

I have not contacted their support. When I am developing, I try to make a bot quite stable. I am aware of what is happening and what it is doing, and I can notify people with logs or names of different events that are occurring during the process execution. I know exactly what is happening and where. It is quite easy and fast to diagnose and fix if there is an issue, but it is not often that I have to intervene in production. If a process is designed correctly and safely, not much intervention is required. Clients look for this kind of stability because that will save the time that they will have to spend fixing things in the production environment.

They have a UiPath Community, but I have not used it often. If there is something blocking, I go over there, but generally, I find the solution to the issues through my colleagues.

It has always been on-premises. The setup is quite straightforward. If there is some kind of Orchestrator to be installed, it is more difficult, and it takes more time. Usually, they want to have someone internally to handle the Orchestrator. I am more focused on the bots and the triggers for these bots to be executed. I am not that often involved in the implementation of the infrastructure of UiPath for the operational side.

Bot development duration varies. It depends on the process, but it can take a few weeks to several months. I have bots that were developed in two or three weeks, and I also have bots that took at least six months because they were quite heavy and complex. Generally, it does not take longer than that because then it will not be as valuable to the clients. If it takes more than six months, it is better to have it developed in their own software.

Bot deployment is quite straightforward for most of my clients because, during development time, I take care of environment parameters. So, deployment is quite straightforward. It is a matter of deploying and pressing a button to have the package deployed. We then set parameters in config files, but it does not take a long time to have it deployed.

Bots usually do not require any maintenance, but if the source of data has been upgraded or modified or the UI has been modified, they might require some maintenance. Usually, once the process is running and every source is stable, there is no need for maintenance. When the data source changes or the infrastructure changes, such as the main server being moved or renamed, then there is a risk over there, but it is not a big deal to adapt.

Generally, two or three people might have to investigate the cause of the issue. If the issue is inside the bot, it is not a problem. One person is enough. If it is related to external data sources or infrastructure, it may take two or three people depending on the segmentation of the clients' people in their departments and services.

I do not know about the exact price because I am not selling anything. I propose several solutions to the clients, and the client does choose one of them. If UiPath is chosen, they contact the official reseller in the country. In one case, I had the prices in front of me, and it was not expensive for the service it was providing.

I would recommend it depending on the needs. UiPath can do a lot of things, and I have covered only 20% of UiPath functionality. Based on my experience and the needs that I had so far, UiPath has been quite valuable.

I would advise defining your use cases. That is the rule for everything. Once you have the use cases analyzed, you can specify what is needed, how you would do it, and what is the best solution to have it implemented. One thing that I am doing is that I am mixing solutions, where, for example, UiPath interacts with Python processes that I have developed. Python processes provide information in files. Web scraping is not difficult in UiPath, but it is quite heavy. In Python, it is faster to develop and use than with UiPath. It also depends on the number of iterations and resources available to execute it. It is a matter of the quality of a particular functionality in UiPath. UiPath relies on the .Net framework, and it has its own limitations. It has quite a heavy set of libraries and frameworks. It is a matter of balancing what you are expecting of it.

I would rate UiPath an eight out of ten. It is a good product. It is well-designed and well-executed.