UiPath Platform Reviews

Our current use case is primarily to automate business processes pertaining to finance, HR, and IT. Finance and HR have been bigger players, and other supply chain areas are currently being targeted. It's still in the ramp-up phase. We do not use it in a contact center environment.

In my former employment, not my current employment, we implemented some banking processes during the implementation phase, and last year, when the lockdown happened, due to the automation, things were much simpler, much easier to manage, and it was less dependent on people. This was not an Indian client, however, I could see that in the Indian market, Indian banks were actually struggling with the same function. That is where we could see a very significant difference. A lot of banking processes are dependent on manual processing.

For our organization, the Orchestrator has the most useful setup. All automation is more or less the same. With UiPath, the difference is the Orchestrator. The amount of integration it has is actually what makes it different from all other vendors.

I would rate the ease of building automation using UiPath at a nine out of ten. For automation in UiPath, you use a package. For example, if you want to do MS Office automation, you have an MS Office package. If you want to do Outlook automation, you have a certain set of packages that support that. If you have the package for that purpose, it's very easy to manage.

For ServiceNow, they did not have a package until last year. There was a UiPath team-supported package that was an unofficial package developed by a UiPath employee. Last year, UiPath came out with its own package, and that helped. Now we have standard automation for ServiceNow. That's actually made things more streamlined.

In terms of implementing end-to-end automation, the process analysis is currently outside of UiPath, but everything except that can be done by UiPath. For us, creating end-to-end automation using UiPath is not that very critical. Process analysis is a bit of a situation-specific thing, and at times, it's usually better to keep it outside of the tool. It always helps within the tool, however, it depends on the convenience and comfort that the client has. I wouldn't want to expose my ERP data directly for automation.

Typically, it takes two to three years to see the breakeven. The difference between on-premise and on-cloud is that the lead time is a little less. That's about it. Therefore, the amount of trouble and setup and that sort of thing is the only item to consider.

The Automation Cloud offering helps to decrease the solution's total cost of ownership by taking care of things such as infrastructure, maintenance, and updates, however, only to some extent. It's not a lot. In the long run, it makes it easier to get breakeven from the initial implementation. The maintenance happens a little less as well. When you're updating the Orchestrator, that is where your major maintenance jump comes in. If you're not upgrading your Orchestrator version, it's more or less the same. From an ownership perspective, if you're not upgrading Orchestrator, only your VM license and hosting cost will be different. This depends on the client.

If you already have an Orchestrator in place, having an automation cloud doesn't really increase or decrease the ability to scale. That would only be only in the case where you want a complete separation environment. In that case, you'll have to use a multi-tenant kind of setup. If you do that kind of a setup, it's the same if you do it on-premise or on-cloud. The time to ramp up should be the same.

We use a mix of attended and unattended automation. Attended automation is primarily helpful for a few things like where the application's less stable, where things like Citrix are involved, which already have their own set of infrastructure issues.

UiPath has reduced human errors in the organization. The lead time is reduced, as well as the lead time to activity and the lead time to develop. Specifically, if you do development in UiPath versus any other OEM, you see a very significant difference in implementation lead time from a development perspective. They're much simpler to develop and manage in UiPath. If you go to other OEMs, it's very complex at times. If it takes 10 steps in another OEM, UiPath takes it in one to three, max.

The solution has freed up employee time by as much as 30 minutes per day. It's allowed employees to focus on higher-value work. The primary benefit of automation is doing low-complexity repetitive work outside of working hours. That's the biggest advantage that I've seen. Even if you're sleeping, there is already work being done in the background, so that the next morning, when the employee comes, he has more relevant work in front of him. He doesn't have to do any paper-pushing jobs. Automation can do that instead. That's the biggest advantage.

The fact that UI handles infrastructure, maintenance, and updates for Automation Cloud saves some time in the IT department. It is a trade-off. The biggest challenge that we've seen with Automation Cloud is primarily with documentation. At times, we raise it to UiPath, and after that, documentation comes up. I'm not saying that's bad, however, that's something that UiPath can work upon. This is a consistent behavior that I've seen.

Back in 2018, I was with another employer, not EY. I started using Orchestrator API within 10 days of its global release, and we had struggled at times for documentation. It's a theme with Orchestrator, with the new Automation Cloud, specifically on the Orchestrator side. For Tableau reporting, there was nothing. We had to raise it to UiPath saying, "Hey, do you have something for Tableau reporting?" They said, "No, we don't have anything for Automation Cloud." Very recently, they came out with it, however, before that, there was nothing.

The documentation isn't the best. It's pretty difficult to search. We would have to raise a ticket to the UiPath team, and they would have to come back with the relevant information. It's difficult to try and do a day or two of research only to have to raise a ticket to UiPath as a vendor.

I've struggled a lot with automating Citrix applications with UiPath. I know how Citrix is not very stable when it comes to automated logins. In that case, attended automation is good. We've seen some good use cases. However, it depends on the consultant's choice and the business's goals.

I've been using it since 2018.

The solution is very easy to scale and allows users to scale whenever they want.

In general, UiPath support is good. It is better than other OEMs. They're usually really good.

I have experience with other RPA solutions. The development time is the biggest difference. The amount of automation one can do with it, that's the main difference. It's huge. It's not even a small difference.

I've looked at leading vendors in Gartner's Magic Quadrant. I've actually worked on all the vendors that you can see in the Magic Quadrant. There is a reason why UiPath is leading. Development is great, and, if you want to integrate a third-party application, UiPath has a lot of integrations set up either in its Orchestrator or in its Studio. Something that takes 15 minutes in UiPath would take one day in most of the other options. In Automation Anywhere, for example, you have more trouble.

The Orchestrator setup doesn't take a lot of time if you have everything in place. Cloud deployment is a good option for smaller clients, or small to medium clients, that are just piloting or don't have any very sensitive data out there. They should go on the cloud.

It's a straightforward setup. It's pretty easy. That said if it's a new solution to you and if you don't know it, it might take a little while. Even then, it's easy. It's not complex.

Prior to StudioX coming in, it was very easy. Within 15 minutes for just a Studio client. However, with Studio, things changed a little. If you install StudioX and do not want to revert to the regular Studio, you'll probably have to uninstall the installation. StudioX usually comes with a separate installer and so on. With Studio Pro and the regular Studio, they come with their own thing.

UiPath is already working on providing an integrated installer for all of its offerings, so that should make it easier. If there is a wrapper application, and if from there you can select which one that you want to install, it'll be smoother. You'll be able to just click and go.

I have seen ROI in the past. My previous clients love UiPath. The current client is not in a spot to say just yet, however. It's a very new setup.

To see the ROI, that's where the off-work hours come into play. The automation works outside of working hours, and that actually speeds up a company's business processes in general. For those kinds of things, it's good. It shows a clear ROI.

The pricing is okay. It can be reduced a little. It's still fair, however, pricing can be reduced by the company if it wants to spend less. Depending on the industry, or depending on the features that an organization is going to get, it's possible to scale down. For example, if I don't want to use the AI set of features, I just want basic automation, I don't have to get what I don't need. They've already done a good amount of corrections in the product offering. If somebody wants only a certain section of the offering, they should be given modular pricing, especially for the managed cloud, which should be pay as you go. If I don't want that service at all, why should you pay for it? If I want something, it's a different situation and I should be charged, however, if I don't want something, it's good to have the option to opt-out and save money. You can't really put the whole cost on a customer.

SAP IRPA has a good model whereby their offering is based on the number of hits. The more API hits that you're asking for, the price per hit reduces. That should be the typical model. I'm not sure what UiPath is doing in that respect, however, I feel that is the best approach.

My organization has a business relationship with UiPath.

In the current setting that I'm working in, it's basically an on-cloud deployment. We have these Automation Cloud Services, to which we have been subscribed. In the past, I've used the on-premise UiPath deployment.

Since it's a SaaS offering, it's always available online.

We are using a relatively new version.

We do not use UiPath's AI functionality in our automation program currently. We also do not use UiPath's apps feature. That said, I am aware of some organizations that use it.

I would advise new users to fix up their processes first, check if their applications need to be upgraded or digitized. After that, they will be in a position to then take a long-term vision with UiPath and have a strategy, have a long, two to three-year strategy. It's not a good idea to take a "do as it comes" approach. There needs to be, ideally, a three-year strategy in place in order to get a lot of business benefits. 

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If the pricing was better, I would rate it higher. 

Specifically, if you see Automation Anywhere's pricing, their basic automation is cheap, however, if you want to use the intelligent aspect, the intelligent aspect comes at a very good premium. That's most important. If I want to do simple process automation and if you're running a company at that scale, you need to understand your competition. There are a lot of players coming into the market and a big differentiator is going to be the cost. Power Automate is going to be successful based on that logic. It has high availability, big integration, and low pricing. It can disrupt UiPath's space.

We provide RPA services and I am currently working on two different projects.

These projects are for two different clients that are each using a different version of the platform. In both cases, it is an on-premises deployment. Our clients only use the end product and don't do any development themselves.

One of my clients is a retail organization and the primary use case is invoice automation. Previously, the process was totally manual. They have different products and different departments and for each and every department for which they bill, like HR, there are printing and supply chain tasks to be completed. As part of their process, they generate invoices monthly.

To generate invoices, they need to gather data from different sources, such as a database or Excel files. What we have done is fully automated the process. They now only need to work with a consolidated Excel sheet and then email it, once complete.

Once they send the email to a particular email address, the robot retrieves it and reads the attached Excel sheet. After doing some cleaning, consolidation, and validation, it generates invoices each month in a particular template, and then it submits them to the EBS portal.

The manual invoicing task used to take between two and two and a half weeks. Now, they start it at 4:30 when they leave and it works overnight. The process is now fully completed within two days. The time saved is now time that can be used to focus on higher-value work. It has also improved employee satisfaction.

With respect to building automations, UiPath is very easy to use. I have trained people to use this product and it is so easy to use that even on the first day, people are able to start working with it.

UiPath enables us to implement end-to-end automation and it starts with features like task mining, process mining, and task capture. Then, we have Orchestrator, where there is a control room that gives you insights, and you can create dashboards using Kibana.

We have done work for a giant logistic firm, and the end-to-end coverage is very important for them. If you are spending and investing money then you should get a return, and the return, in this case, is measured by FTE savings.

Another way that UiPath has improved the way our organization functions is that we have introduced automation to clients that were not even aware of it. For example, we have a client that we have worked with for many years and we were ultimately able to introduce them to RPA. At this point, we have automated many of their processes. Essentially, when you automate a process or task for a company that is not even aware of RPA, they will start using it, which is very helpful for us.

UiPath has definitely helped to minimize the on-premises footprint for our clients. We work with a non-profit organization that we have done some automation for. Since they are non-profit, keeping infrastructure costs down is important. They run events each quarter and in the administration of those events, they have highlighted what they want to have automated and some of the processes include using AI and ML. As a result, the company is growing and creating new products.

I have seen companies that were hesitant about starting with automation because they were worried about the cost. However, in the long run, it saves a great deal in terms of FTEs, effort, and costs. Ultimately, it has helped to reduce the cost of digital transformation for our clients.

This product definitely helps to reduce human error. For example, if there is any human input that is required by the process then UiPath will help to catch these kinds of errors.

UiPath has also helped us to free up employee time. One use case that helped to free employee time was for our client that had to reset lost passwords manually. It was quite common that one of their users lost a password and needed to have it reset, so we created automation for it. The bot interacts with the Unix server to reset the password and the process is now free of manual effort.

Especially for a larger organization, time is money and if you're saving time, it's definitely saving you money. Overall, UiPath has reduced costs for our clients. 

The feature that we use the most is Studio.

Document Understanding is a good feature that is very helpful to us. We have an ongoing project that requires reading PDF files. We need to use different OCR engines and see which ones give us the correct data. Document Understanding allows you to extract the data into different types using different extractors. For example, there is an ML extractor and other types that allow you to pinpoint fields and determine which should be accepted. Based on the confidence level, it gets better every time. In this way, the feature has helped us a lot.

This is the friendliest community and forum that I have ever seen, which is something I see as added value.

I have been using UiPath for close to four years and I have worked with many of the features, but there are still some that I don't know. It is not obvious what all of the features do and it would be helpful to have more information about them.

I have been using UiPath for between three and four years, since 2017.

UiPath is pretty stable. Over time, I have seen them add new features and I have not found anything that wasn't working.

Automations are very easy to scale, regardless of what project you are working on. You don't have to think about the infrastructure, which is helpful. One of the things that make it more scalable is that we can integrate third-party tools and applications.

Our clients are expanding their scope in terms of RPA, so we expect to expand our usage. We will be looking for more use cases and developing more bots.

I have been in contact with technical support and my experience was very good. They responded the same day and resolved the query.

Neither we nor our customers were using a different RPA solution, prior to UiPath.

I have a little bit of experience with Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism, although I have not used either of these to implement a bot for production.

The biggest differences between UiPath and these other products are user experience and ease of use. For example, with UiPath Studio, I can easily find things. Even after training on the other solutions, Uipath is still easier, which is a big plus.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It was installed with the MSI installer. I have also installed the Orchestrator, both on-premises and in the cloud, and it is also straightforward.

For Studio, it takes a few minutes to install it, or uninstall and upgrade it. If you have the prerequisites and the AI settings and other configuration options decided, it will take between five and ten minutes to complete.

If you have a reasonable and straightforward process then it can be developed and pushed to production the same day that you install UiPath.

To maintain the Orchestrator and the other components, one or two people would be enough. One person might have the Orchestrator and UiPath knowledge of what settings are required, whereas another person is purely IT and can assist in that regard.  

I have deployed this solution for a client on my own, so a single person is able to do it, without help from a third party.

Based on what my clients have saved in terms of FTEs, they are extending their scope of automation. For example, in one organization, they saved two FTEs and are now automating processes in different departments. I cannot estimate a dollar value but this saving in FTEs is their ROI. Overall, they are finding it very helpful.

The combination of Orchestrator and Studio is a bit on the higher side, price-wise, for some companies.

Overall, I think that the pricing is reasonable and it is similar to competitors. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

We have used attended automation for our clients but I have not worked with that functionality. My work has been unattended RPA tasks.

I have tried the Automation Cloud offering but only personally, for learning. The SaaS option is very good and important for some companies because it allows them to save money. Regarding the price, not every organization can afford the Orchestrator, Studio, and everything else that goes with it. These types of companies sometimes want to be service-based, rather than purchasing everything on-premises, and this SaaS offering allows them to save money doing that.

I have implemented the UiPath AI functionality in a PoC, but not in any project as of yet. It is able to handle very complex automations, including those that include third-party integrations, as well as multiple environments on remote machines. We have tried some examples using Excel, Word, and PDF activities and at the same time, interacting with SharePoint, and Microsoft CRM. We are also getting data from the Citrix environment. Applying the AI functionality, it is very much capable of accomplishing complex tasks of these types.

We have not yet used the UiPath Apps feature, although I have explored it. It is a low-code option that you can use to create apps based on where you can see and interact with data, and then use them from Orchestrator. We plan to implement it in one of our projects soon.

There is a myth that when companies develop automations, they will lose jobs. In our experience, there is nothing like that. In fact, we have hired more people since we started working with UiPath.

They have added many features in the time that I have been using UiPath. For example, the AI/ML capabilities have improved to include things like a chatbot. Document Understanding is another new feature that was added, along with an ML Extractor, and AI Center. These packages have a lot of good features that will be helpful for everyone.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using UiPath is that there are a lot of processes in an organization that can be automated, and it is worth investing in RPA because you can reclaim that time for something more important. After using UiPath for some time, I am much better able to recognize processes that can be automated.

My advice for anybody who is thinking about implementing UiPath is definitely to go ahead with it. I recommend using it without thinking about anything else. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Orchestrator, Studio, and of course the bots for indexing documents received from outside providers.

The best example of the way this product has improved how our organization functions is by the increase in efficiency it has helped us achieve.

The most valuable features are the ability to schedule tasks and using Orchestrator to centrally manage our bots.

Areas of this solution that have room for improvement are a couple of activities that have issues. We would like to incorporate machine learning so that we can do some of the quality checks that we do automatically instead of relying 100% on manual quality review by humans.

Additional features that we would like to see included in the next release are those they seem to already have planned. I am very intrigued by the AI capabilities that we saw in demonstrations. Having that capability would be absolutely fantastic.

On a scale from one to five where one is not stable and five is very stable, I would rate the stability of UiPath platform as about a four. There are two activities that we use that fail about 5% of the time. UiPath is fixing that — as far as we understand — and so we should get a solution very soon.

We currently have just two people in our organization involved in the automation program. That could potentially expand under the right circumstances.

Our team has had the opportunity to use the UiPath Academy RPA training. On a scale from one to five where one is the least beneficial and five is very beneficial, I would rate the UiPath Academy in training our team as a five-out-of-five. We literally started at ground zero with UiPath software, and, without the training, I don't think we would know exactly what it can do.

I also think the source support and technical support for this solution are both very good.

From the time we purchased our UK UiPath license until we had your first robot in production was really before purchase. We had a proof of concept opportunity prior to purchasing the product, so we could make sure it worked for our purposes.

The initial setup process was straightforward. We started with just Studio, and not Orchestrator. Our deployment was just a simple matter of installing Studio. It was very simple to install.

We have not seen a return on investment in a way that we can account for exactly because we have not done that evaluation. At this point, we have projected some ROI numbers but we don't have the final ROI. I think it did not take long to see the ROI as it didn't take months. It probably just took a few days to see a difference.

The performance benefits we have seen at this stage of our deployment is in the form of increased productivity. So, in our development processes, we have at least doubled the performance of the process we have automated.

The solution also helped to eliminate human errors. I really don't know the percentages we have not done that evaluation, but I know it does eliminate them as it is evident in the results.

On top of that, the solution saves our organization time which is also evident in the fact that the staff members who are using the bots can double their performance.

On a scale from one to five with one being the most difficult and five being very easy, I would rate the interface of the UiPath platform as a four-out-of-five. I chose that rating only because our legacy software is a bit difficult to automate. The selectors end up not always being accurate.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate the product overall as a nine. I don't think I have enough understanding to give it a ten. However, it seems from our investigation of other platforms, that UiPath is one of the easiest RPA systems to learn and use.

My advice to anyone considering RPA as a solution is to do your homework upfront. Learn what the platforms can do before you just pick one and start trying to automate.

Currently, we're using Studio and soon to be using Orchestrator. We have not actually deployed any bots yet, but we have looked into both Orchestrator and bots. We have just looked at the solution set of that on why do we need to deploy in the future.

Our primary use will vary from department to department. We have what we call 11 global practices. These range across different platforms, but the underlying theme of that is we want to automate different items which might be finance or accounting or HR or whatever. But where I think it will be most useful is in our core business where I'm looking to apply it to engineering project management.

The most valuable feature for us has been the ability to take data out of where we have it — Excel sheets or wherever it may be — and translate it into customer-owned Citrix environments. Our primary core is engineering. A lot of our business requires us to take data what we have developed as part of the design process and relay that into work orders or other process triggers, ordering triggers, or material ordering, or different things for our clients. Allowing us to interface local data with Citrix environments is going to be a big deal.

I'm not exactly sure what I want to see enhanced yet. I know that we do a lot of small processes. Depending on how good Studio X is and how easy that is to build and manage we could potentially do a lot of small little things inside of various design tools like Excel, Word, and Outlook and to be able to kick out the workflows from that.

We like to do a lot of the design side locally for Excel, whether that be in a BBA or an add-in type environment. Being able to manage and deploy or build those will be helpful. Maybe we won't call them bots, maybe we call them processes that are centrally managed. In addition to the Microsoft stack, we use many other vendors like AutoCAD, Bentley MicroStation, Revit Inventor, BIM 360 and Autodesk Forge. To us, the CAD world is where we can see a lot of time savings and benefit ROI on a solution. That would be our next horizon.

I think this solution has room for improvement in the area of ease-of-use. It does require a little bit of coding background to be able to get in and really build out the solution. After I get in and look at Studio X a little more, I may change my opinion on that.

We have six people working in the organization involved in our automation program. We are pretty confident that can scale easily.

Since we have not deployed to production yet, we are not sure which direction we'll be going in. We were looking on-premises but the software as a service cloud deployment will likely be a hit with our IT department. We plan to run our automation in virtual environments through a Citrix interface but not in Citrix.

On a scale from one to five where one is very difficult and five is very easy, I would rate the ease of the use of the platform as a three or four for now. I saw some things today I'd like to dig into a little farther, and I think that that Studio X would make it a whole lot easier for citizen developers to get in and do small tasks. Rebuilding tasks for accounting and finance where there are fairly rigid rules will be great. In the engineering world, our interfacing with the clients sometimes changes on a weekly basis. So having something that is very flexible like Studio X will make it possible to flex and change with those environments very quickly, very easily, very nimbly, and to deploy and redeploy. So if Studio X is what I hope it is, that rating may be closer to a five than not.

I primary use Studio, but I also use Orchestrator.

I develop robots for reducing tasks for our business users.

We run some of our automations in the Citrix virtual environment. We have found that the Citrix environment tends to present challenges, so it can take a little longer.

With a year and a half of experience, I am still learning with this platform. I find that the ease by which processes can be automated is not as much of an issue with the platform, but rather how it behaves with other applications that the robot controls. The learning curve is mostly how the robot behaves in maybe a Citrix environment, or in how it behaves with the applications that it's controlling. Sometimes they have their own little quirks that you have to learn.

I got started with this solution by using the Academy training. On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a three. It is easier to get started because you are learning by experimenting.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately seven or eight weeks. 

Some of the robots handle high-volume processing, where people would take months but the robots are doing it in weeks. We have probably saved two hundred hours so far, using robots. Timing is a big issue. The tasks can be completed quicker because robots can do it on-demand, rather than having to schedule a person's time. I would say that for the tasks, they are saving forty to fifty percent of the time by using the robot.

Not all of the tasks we have automated were existing in-house processes. In some cases, after using the platform, we thought about ways to create automated tasks that were never being done before.

Human errors have been reduced, if not eliminated by using the solution. When users have to complete a task in a timely fashion they sometimes miss one of the steps, but this is solved using the robots.

The robots that I have developed can take a process that is normally very complicated and simplify it. 

The licensing process is complicated and needs to be improved.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a four. The tool itself is quite stable and I haven't had any real issues with it. The issues that I have had tend to be with Citrix or the environment that the robots are running in, and not the platform itself.

In the US, we have two developers who are working with this solution.

The installation was straightforward but activating the license was slightly complicated. I'm not sure if it was a UiPath issue or something at the company.

We are definitely seeing performance benefits for users and the turnaround time for tests that we have to do.

I have seen a demo with Studio X and it should help with the coding so that we can go live quicker than we do.

Using RPA has given us another tool to offer with respect to business solutions. Automation is something that we're actively looking for places to make use of.

This is a good solution, but there is a learning curve. One you are familiar with it, this solution works well and it is fun to work with.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the tool for robotic process automation to automate mundane business processes prone to human error.

Some of UiPath's best features are its ability to interact well with applications and its less proneness to errors. It allows us to implement end-to-end automation, which is very important for our organization since we have many time-consuming job runs.

The tool has improved our organization by reducing operational costs through process automation and cutting FTEs. We can do more regression testing for test automation, leading to better products. It's helped minimize our on-premises footprint to some extent and aided organizational restructuring.

We've used the academy courses, which are good for beginners and advanced users. UiPath has sped up digital transformation, allowing quick fixes without building entire new solutions. It reduces human errors by 60-70 percent and saves us around 2500 hours.

UiPath is pretty easy to use for small—and medium-scale automation. However, maintaining the code becomes a bit more difficult when building large-scale, enterprise-level automation. Areas for improvement include versioning for collaborative projects and reporting features currently lacking.

I have been using the product for six years. 

As for stability, I'd rate it as six out of ten. Once a project is built, we face many issues, and we often have to go back to UiPath. So, in my opinion, stability could be improved.

My company has 10-15 users. Based on my experience, I would say UiPath is a scalable solution. I'd rate its scalability around seven or eight out of ten.

The user community for UiPath is great. We can ask about any issues we have on the community forum and usually get them resolved. Regarding technical support, it's amazing that they respond quickly. However, their level one engineer could be better educated on the tool before moving to level two support.

Neutral

We previously used an open-source Java Selenium solution but switched to UiPath for better security and platform capabilities.

We have the tool deployed in the cloud version. The deployment process was straightforward—it was pretty easy, mostly just drag and drop. Because of the number of projects we have, the initial deployment took days to months.

We use UiPath in multiple locations globally, including the US and India. The solution requires maintenance, particularly from a coding perspective.

I'd estimate UiPath has helped us save around 10-15 percent in costs.

UiPath is a pretty expensive tool compared to what the market offers, including open-source alternatives that can do similar things.

Overall, I would recommend UiPath to other users. The main reasons I like it and would recommend it are that it's very user-interactive and its capabilities are really good.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it overall around eight.

The solution is to get requirements over to Jira, then we use it to automate some of the processes. We can automate changes and statuses.

The solution is user-friendly and easy to handle. Anyone can understand it pretty quickly.

The robots are helpful. The orchestrator is easy to operate. 

The UI is simple and easy to understand.

It makes automation very easy. There are some use cases where you need a small amount of coding. It's a very low-code way of automating. That means you don't need much knowledge to start building what you need. Overall, it's easy to learn. You can even Google questions and find solutions to your queries. 

We can make end-to-end automation, even though I might now always use it that way.

The user community is very good. On their own website, you can find a lot of great information.Their documentation allows you to understand it pretty well. There are videos as well. They make it easy to understand and follow along. Seeing it visualized makes things much easier. And if you have any errors, there are many people all over the world that may have already dealt with those, so you can get information to help you adjust. 

Since it's low-code, we saw the benefits of using UiPath very quickly.

We've been able to minimize our on-premises footprint. 

I've used the UiPath Academy. I've been certified. There are lots of videos and you can go through and you can complete any number of certificates. 

When you make automation, you can save a lot of time. Using it, you can reduce your manual output. It helps VAs and managers save time.

The automation saves on manual labor.

They already have a good overview of the product and training. I haven't found anything significantly negative about the product. 

The pricing can be a big factor for a lot of users. It could be reduced to help more companies leverage its automation capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for the past five years. 

The stability is good. We haven't gotten any kinds of errors. 

The scalability is good. 

I've never contacted technical support. 

I've used other RPA tools, such as Automation Anywhere. People do need to have a bit more knowledge about AA before using it. 

The deployment is very easy. There are just some steps you need to follow. We were able to deploy it in three to four hours. We had three people handling the deployment process as well as testing and creating automation. 

There is maintenance if you make any changes to processes. For example, if an endpoint changes, the automation will need to be changed. 

Automation Anywhere may be more widely used than UiPath based on pricing. 

We're UiPath end-users. 

They have a feature called communications mining. However, I haven't used it yet. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's a good tool to start with when exploring RPA automation, and there are many free items available on the UiPath Academy website itself. You just need to log in, and you can get certified and start practicing. You can start practicing with creating your own bot. It's a very easy tool, and very user-friendly. With small, low-code capabilities, a non-technical person can learn it; it just requires small amounts of coding.

The use cases are quite broad.  UiPath is used in customer contact centers, supply chain management, operations, etc. It is useful for the intelligent automation of task-oriented processes.

It's easy to sell clients on a cloud-based solution like UiPath because it's the easiest to maintain and run. Some of the customers have already adopted a cloud-first strategy, so it's crucial for them not to have to operate their own data center. Others need to have a data center for privacy reasons. 

The solution helps customers reduce costs by about 20 percent. UiPath doesn't require any expensive or complex application upgrades. It has reduced human error. UiPath has improved outcomes like SLAs and customer satisfaction scores while reducing wasted time. 

UiPath frees up employee time, but the exact amount varies from client to client. It depends on your scope and your use case. You can obviously save time. It depends on how you design the process or whether you're automating one process or 10. 

I appreciate the stability of the UI automation, the studio, and the development environment. I also like the platform's rich capabilities. Stability and performance are always essential when automating through the user interface. This is what they definitely bring to the table. 

Regarding the ease of building automations, I would rate UiPath nine out of 10. It's the best tool in the marketplace. It's easy to build automations, and the interface is easy to use. I like how it integrates with the Orchestrator and everything works together. There are so many different use cases that we can easily connect through APIs, databases, and user interfaces to automate all kinds of applications. 

UiPath's end-to-end automation is critical. It's the most efficient way to automate. You automate mundane tasks so that people can focus on everything that requires expert skills or knowledge. 

The solution's user community is amazing. There's a lot of knowledge and experience, and it's easy to access that information. It's a highly active community. The UiPath Academy also has some attractive content that gives you hands-on experience with the product. The courses are easy to follow. 

I have been using UiPath for about three years. 

Excellent stability.

UiPath's scalability is excellent. 

I have had limited contact with UiPath support, which says something about the product. 

I have used Automation Anywhere and UiPath. I've looked at other options, but UiPath is at the high end.

Deploying UiPath is straightforward. It's fast. You can deploy UiPath in five minutes depending on what you need and how everything is configured up front. You need to get a platform account and set up the machines that will be part of the solution. You also need to set up users and assign them licenses. UiPath requires some maintenance based on the types of packages you're running. One person can do it. It isn't too complex. 

UiPath is relatively expensive. However, it's the leading product because it has so many capabilities. 

I rate UiPath 9 out of 10. When implementing, I recommend sketching out your costs over multiple use cases and comparing them to an alternative solution.