UiPath Platform Reviews

I have used UiPath Orchestrator, and we have created both attended and unattended robots for our clients.

We have been using the new AI and OCR technologies with UiPath, and we are currently trying to implement the Citrix log capability that was recently introduced.

We are not running our automations in a virtual environment. When we automate any Citrix-based application, it's all email-based. There is a Citrix receiver and we communicate with that, which helps automate Citrix applications much faster.

Most of the clients I had seen have been running in virtual environments, although I have seen some of our clients running on the desktop. We have also seen hybrid scenarios.

One thing is that virtual environments can be standardized pretty quickly. So, that's an advantage. Normally, the companies, which are leaning towards more cloud now, will be happy with this. So, I think that is one factor. As you move virtual machines to the cloud you can migrate your bots to the cloud faster.

I have worked on various different domains including the public sector, commercial, healthcare, energy, utility, and federal. These are the different customers for which we are implementing solutions. Now, the customers are moving towards AI and natural language processing. They are more into chatbots, how they can use artificial intelligence, making use of data science, and putting more machine learning on board.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it two and a half. I'd say it is about marketing. You can develop anything. There are very small processes that you can develop with having minimal experience. However, when you start implementing complex processes, I would say you need to be a background developer.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. All of my team members have been using UiPath Academy for training and certification. It's not just with the U.S., but outside the U.S. as well.

From the point that a UiPath license is purchased until the first robot is ready totally depends upon what use case we are implementing. There are different methodologies that people use. Some build the bot without exceptions and it can go to production. Like a very simple process can go to production in two to three weeks. A more complex bot will take eight to ten weeks, and depending upon the process, it can go longer. I have seen tasks when a human is performing the job and it takes him around twenty minutes per transaction. But, when the bot comes in, it actually completed that same transaction in five minutes. But, to develop that five minutes of processing, it was understanding system availability and testing. Then you have to do load testing. It takes ten weeks or so.

Our clients decide to implement RPA for several reasons. The first reason, of course, is to have work completed faster. Second, when there is a workload, you can work on it more efficiently and with fewer people. Consider an open enrollment in October, where the open enrollment starts at 10:00 AM and there are a lot of transactions flowing in. Now you have to hire a human and train them. With the bot, we can just scale up instead. Finally, the bots are errorless.

In terms of eliminating human errors, it is a one hundred percent reduction. When you implement bots, it's error-free, as long as you have implemented it properly. The robot does not get tired, so the error rate is actually zero.

I would say, more important than saving money, it's more about business growth and client satisfaction. Our clients all serve someone, so it's more about customer satisfaction. The employees benefit because sometimes they have to do repetitive jobs, and they get bored with them. So, they can use automation and apply their brains somewhere fruitful.

Overall, automation is always improving customer satisfaction. Response time is improved, errors are reduced, and productivity increases because work is being done around the clock.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is user-friendly. I was a coding developer, so I know how to write code, and I've also used other RPA tools. This solution is workflow-driven, where you can easily relay what you had written. If someone has to read the code, it is very readable.

Second, I've always been a Microsoft technology guy, and they have provided the facility where we can implement any of the C# code into it. We have .NET code, and that's why I like it. We say it's a tool, but I would say it can also be leveraged as a custom coding tool. We can actually do whatever custom code you want.

I would like to see more machine learning features and capabilities for more accurate OCR.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It's stable. The thing is, with the software, we have a few glitches here and there, but what I like is that we have the right support. When we actually reach out to verify, we get a faster response and also a faster solution. The responses are effective and fast.

The responses are effective and fast.

I have seen some cases where there is backend automation, but it was a series of processes. With this solution, they combine all of it into one. There were few human-interactive automations. Rather, it was batch-job processing of databases, etc.

The complexity of the initial setup depends upon the client.

There is admin access and a whole lot involved. There are safety concerns from client to client with their security policies, and it may take time. I have hardly seen any clients where it's easy to set up, within a week or two. It takes longer because of the client's own security policies. You have to get a lot of clearance because there is a lot of admin access that UiPath needs. If I had to rate the setup, I would give it three out of five.

A dedicated person is required to maintain this solution. The same way humans get sick and need doctors, the bots get sick and you need a maintenance person.

I would estimate that our clients see ROI, on average, in one year. It depends on what they are trying to save. If it is FTE then eventually you'll be getting everything. If you are trying to have a faster experience, it totally depends. There is a development cost and a tool cost that have to be considered. It also depends on the complexity of the processes and how long they take to code.

We have clients who use almost all of the RPA solutions. The most common ones are Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and WorkFusion. We don't recommend. We advise. We can implement regardless of the solution.

The choice is dependent on various factors. What we have seen is that most companies have a technology stack. Some have a Java shop, while others have a Microsoft shop, or others will use a different technology stack again. People tend to choose what best matches their technology.

When we started initially, most of the business users were afraid that the bot was going to take their job. That is not the case. The bot is actually helping them with their substantive, day-to-day work, by handing the repetitive work. So, after seeing the benefits, I've seen a lot of users now leaning towards bots, and they are very happy with RPA.

I am looking forward to the new version where they have implemented libraries. One thing they have done is merged the media packages into one. 

From a cost perspective, there is a difference between attended and unattended bots. I have implemented both, but most of the plans are moving towards unattended. The unattended bots come at a higher cost. For an attended bot, it is being used while the user is at the machine, and is more like an interactive bot. While there is a huge difference in cost, I still prefer unattended bots. I see less benefit in using attended bots and say that I would use unattended eighty percent of the time.

When I'm implementing an unattended bot, I am actually putting it on a machine. I can run as many unattended bots as I need on that one machine. I can do this with attended bots, but the thing is, you need user interactions. Now think in this way, if the user is not there, the attended bot is waiting for that user. Secondly, I see some of the use cases that are really helpful and suitable for attended, but I would rather go with unattended because it's going to show that I don't need a physical machine and it will be more efficient.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to start with the UiPath Academy and do the training. Then, look through some videos, implement a process or two and see how comfortable you are. At this point, you can move forward with it. I would say that it is pretty easy to understand.

This is a good solution, but I'm a hardcore custom developer. I still want that flexibility in my hand to do whatever I can do. With a tool, there are always limitations in terms of policy and rules.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the financial processes. 

In our company, we are freeing up 14,000 hours per month.

All of the UiPath's components, meaning Studio, Orchestrator, and Unattended Robotics, are really important for us because they offer really clean processes. The one that generates more value for us is the Orchestrator because we are planning to really scale up the factory. It helps us to have an overview and control. With the insights that they announced recently, I hope we have really great control over it in the company.

In terms of ease of use, I would rate the solution five out of five. It's really intuitive and any people that have the basics of coding can handle it. 

In the next release, they need enterprise connect. That's something we were wondering about. 

The solution could maybe use more artificial intelligence components or stuff we can start to use in the AI field. 

It could use an easy integration with SAP. Most of the processes of our company are in SAP. Sometimes it's kind of tricky to automate it.

I'd rate the stability four out of five. We haven't presented problems but sometimes with the UiPath robot, the robot attended license breaks.

We have reached out to technical support. We are in Columbia so sometimes there are slow responses because they don't have too much capacity to attend to us in Latin America. It could be better.

Our time to market in implementing our first robot was four months because it was new for everyone in the company. We started too many processes at the same time and we were preparing everything around the company. It was slow. It was four or five months.

The initial setup was easy. We didn't have any problems.

We implemented the solution ourselves. Our IT department and our robotics architect handled it. We also had UiPath help us with the set up as well.

I'd rate their assistance five out of five. They helped us a lot.

Unattended robot costs are high.

For our company, we have money to buy the solution and we have a huge contract with UiPath, but for companies that are smaller, the costs are too high. For example, a company that is not too big, because they have to pay in dollars, may suffer because conversion rates are high.

When we started we started with UiPath and Blue Prism. We made 14 processes with each and we decided to stay with UiPath. Mostly because of the IT architecture. We really like the Orchestrator, for example. It was like a huge consideration we had because Blue Prism is like a closed book and we didn't like it too much.

We utilize the full UiPath package. We are all on the cloud using the Microsoft Azure platform. 

We also use it within the virtual environment. It has been tough implementing it. Sometimes it doesn't identify the selectors or the images. It has a higher risk of failure. It's risky to have a centralized process.

We plan on automating the drilling process, the upstream and midstream process of the company, and the transportation of oil and gas for the company. Those are the main areas for us that we are aiming to automate. We started with back processes such as financial processes, logistic processes, and HR processes because they are not the core. As we continue learning about it, we will focus on the back-office processes.

A prerequisite for us in the company is to go through the UiPath RPA Training Academy. They have many courses, including foundations and advanced certifications. I'd rate the Training Academy four out of five. If they didn't explain too many things that would be great. They do basic stuff that will help people have a different mindset about it. They need more of an overview. Use cases, examples and more explanations about the activities in the UiPath would be useful. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using the attended, unattended, and Orchestrator components of this solution.

Our primary use case is developing automation around revenue cycle management in the healthcare space.

We run automations in a virtual environment and we are very happy with that ability. It is much more time-consuming when compared to running it directly on the server, but it is very reliable and it is a great way to create automations that you wouldn't otherwise be able to create. Of course, we prefer to go directly to the same environment.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four. In order for me to give it a five, it would have to be such that a user could go in and develop it easily with a point and a click. I think it would be extremely difficult to build a platform that was that simple for the end-user, but I think UiPath has come a long way and is very good at making it easier and easier as we go along.

We have at least ten developers who have gone through the certification training with the UiPath Academy. On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training four and a half. The training is wonderful. There are certain elements of the training platform that are not keeping up with the product though. Also, some of the things that are in the documentation are not up to date. Being a little outdated, it can be kind of frustrating for the people that are going through it. But, it's a great way for people to get a good understanding of how to use all of the elements of the process.

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

In terms of eliminating human errors, they are one hundred percent gone. When we build the bots we build them right, and there are no more human errors.

With respect to saving time, for the processes that we have built, it saves at least ninety percent of the time that humans were taking. We have to have somebody that monitors the bots. In case they stop, they have to start them up again.

We are a development shop for UiPath, so we use the Studio all day long.

We really like the Orchestrator and how I'm able to see what's going on with all of the different automations.

On the development side, more documentation on how to structure the setup for different environments would be helpful. Our biggest struggle had to do with questions like:

• Do I need to have fifty monitors to run fifty different bots?
• Do I need to have fifty separate computers around fifty different processes at the same time?

There was no really good documentation to teach us how to do that, so there was a bunch of trial and error involved in figuring it out.

We know that we didn't want on-premises computers, but we didn't have any documentation to explain how to set them up in the cloud. We went through several different iterations before we finally got that right.

Ultimately, it took us about three months before we decided on the structure that we wanted, so better documentation on infrastructure would be very helpful.

The product, itself, is generally very stable. On a scale from one to five, I would rate the stability a four. We do have situations where we've run some updates and then ended up with some OCR things breaking on us. But overall, we build automations for our customers and they don't really know that there are any problems whatsoever, because they're generally pretty easy to resolve.

We have approximately twenty people involved in the automation side of the business, but it's growing rapidly.

I have not used technical support other than the online forum.

This was our first RPA implementation.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. It just works. You download it from the cloud and install it on your computer. You might have to update your .NET framework, so make sure that it works. It is very visual and very intuitive, so you're up and running in no time with Studio. With Orchestrator, it takes a little bit of getting used to in terms of matching up Orchestrator with the computers that it's linked to but it took hardly any time for us.

We deployed the solution ourselves.

We have seen benefits, but I would say that it took us longer than most because initially, we were building through an RDP connection. We were also connecting to a software platform that is inherently slow. Between these two things, it took a lot of extra work to get it running and recognizing all of the images and stuff like that.

I can say for sure that we've seen savings on efficiency and labor for performing the tasks that we've automated. As a result of that, we've invested a lot more in training developers and building their skills. We're cash negative on the deal, but it's because we believe in the product. For the processes that we are actually doing, we are seeing savings right away, which is why we're investing more in UiPath.

For people who are researching this type of solution, I would suggest that they test all of them out. All of them give you an opportunity to try them. We initially made our decision to go with UiPath after looking at Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. One of the primary factors that drove us to UiPath was developer feedback. Asking developers what platform they would choose to develop on, all of them said UiPath because it's very flexible and very intuitive. A lot of people are familiar with the .NET framework, so it's easy.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to first speak with people who have already deployed it in a similar type of target environment. Once you know how to set it up, it's easy. It depends on the infrastructure that you want, or need, for your organization. Otherwise, it's just going to be a bunch of trial and error.

From a cost perspective, the unattended bots are obviously much cheaper than the attended bots. However, to build a bot to automate a process where an unattended bot can run it is also more costly for the end-user. For us, it makes more sense to have attended bots. We also have access to a very low-cost labor pool. Because of that, it's cheaper for me to just have somebody monitoring the bots, running them manually.

Overall, this solution is awesome. I'm very excited about all of the new things. We've been doing automations for about eighteen months, and with the product from that time, to where we are today, many new things have come in. I mentioned the problems that we had with the RDP connection but Computer Vision comes out, and it makes things much easier and much more reliable. Fortunately, all those have now switched over to running directly on the servers where we're running the software, so the need for us has gone way. At the same time, I have used Computer Vision and it's great.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are using it for financial applications in the financial sector. We also have a couple of bigger federal customers who started RPA development on their own, then needed our help. 

Internally, the RPA offerings team is developing more resources, so we can support all our customers. This involves a lot Pegasystems, ERP, and homegrown systems.

We are really seeing that RPA in the production, where people are using it, they are getting benefit.

Screen scraping credentials of whatever features that it has. The robot can log into the system, scrape the data, and enter the data into the system. This eliminates a lot of the manual work that the team had to do, which has improved the performance. Our teams used to do a lot of data entry, and this repetitive work has been reduced. The same resource can now work on some high-end work.

The ease of the use is good and exceeded my expectations. The implementation became easier and more standardized. Also, our development time has been reduced. Using ReFrameWork, we saw that the code become organized very nicely by UiPath and the implementation became easier and more standardized with more prebuilt components, which reduced development time. If you load the ReFrameWork nicely, you can do things faster and more standardized.

I have found there to be setup issues with Chrome. Right now, I am using IE.

I am looking for more batching processing because of the ODI framework. While they have a process where they log everything into Orchestrator, then they process it. However, when I have 50,000 to 100,000 records being batch loaded and processed one-by-one Orchestrator, I am apprehensive about it.

Stability looks good except that we see that when we run the bot sometimes somewhere in the middle it fails. It will recovers, but I don't know why and can't answer to my customers why. I don't know if something can be done to eliminate the failing piece. I don't know whether it is a stability issue, but it should be handled in future. Other than that, stability looks great.

If you start using Orchestrator, and you put your Orchestrator on a very high-end machine, it can handle thousands of bots. I don't see any issues with running multiple processes on a single bot, then connecting it to Orchestrator.

Before using UiPath Academy, we used the customer support to answer our initial questions.

This automation is not exactly like other automation that we used to do. This is a different type of automation where we are not disrupting the existing codes. We are providing all these features to the customer.

The initial setup is simple. Once you install Studio, you can do the development within minutes.

Once the bot is programmed, it eliminates human error. It doesn't make any mistakes if you have programmed it correctly.

Right now, we are not working with other vendors.

I would recommend UiPath and its bots.

Most of our work is with unattended bots. People are more keen to work with unattended bots because they just want to schedule it somewhere in the night and let the bot run, then come in the morning and have it ready.

Everyone in our organization has used the UiPath Academy. We are certified in it. There are three levels of training, which we had to go through before the final certification. The Academy is very good and well-organized. We went through it step-by-step.

One of team members developed a bot in a Citrix environment for a project, and it looked great. From his machine, he connected to Citrix, logged into the application, did some data scraping, and built an Excel file, then provided the data.

We use UiPath primarily for our financial operations.

We use this solution in a virtual environment called VMware Horizon. It has allowed us to get started without investing a lot, which was good for us. We need to go to the enterprise solution using Orchestrator as soon as possible. That said, I wouldn't do it differently, because if we were counting on the enterprise environment to get started, we wouldn't have deployed anything in the past year. Because we had this virtual environment, we've been able to deploy 16 bots so far.

We were able to automate a lot of data entry into our financial system. We've automated spreadsheet manipulation in the area of financial management.

We knew that our process was very inefficient, so we had to invest in a solution like UiPath. We hadn't used any other solution before UiPath. Our processes are manual and error-prone and we have mid-level people who are highly skilled who are doing this non-skilled labor, which is a problem for the workforce.

The most value we got from UiPath is the ability to automate manual tasks, reduce labor hours, and shift people to higher value work.

We found the solution easy to use. We wanted to train our staff who were not IT and we were able to do that. People who worked in financial operations were able to learn the software and have successfully developed bots.

We used UiPath Academy RPA training to train 14 people. It was good. I think UiPath needs to do a better job of setting expectations and defining the skill level required. That wasn't very clear to us. We couldn't get a good answer. Therefore, it was trial and error. We were told that people just have to be motivated, but learned that that is not enough.  The trainees need to have some demonstrated technical ability.  We found that some people dropped out because it was too difficult for them. Other people picked it up very well because they had somewhat of a technical background. That would be my message for UiPath, to give better guidance on qualifications in the background needed for training.

One does not need IT coding to learn this, but something within business operations that's somewhat technical. For example, writing Microsoft Excel macros, writing business objects reports, and SQL queries. People who can do those things, they can use UiPath.

I'd like to see the ability to operate in a non-persistent environment. Other than that, I'd like to see more intelligence being built in. We aren't using any intelligence yet, but we'd like to.

It's stable. We haven't really had technical issues.

It's scalable. We're not scalable now because we aren't using the Orchestrator software yet. We have successfully tested Orchestrator and will begin using it for production soon, giving us greater scalability.

We really haven't had to use technical support much. Most of our issues had to do with configuration and the environment, more than the software itself. It's just been one configuration issue related to this software, so far - operation in a non-persistent environment.  I was told there's an enhancement coming, but I don't think we have the enhancement yet.  However, we will not have this issue when we migrate to our enterprise platform with Orchestrator. 

The level of support we received from their technical support was good.

The initial setup was medium complexity. We were using a virtual desktop environment and had to configure it for the software. It took a few months.

We used an integrator to deploy UiPath. Our experience with them was good.

We have definitely seen a return on our investment. It took less than a year to see a positive ROI because we had a very small investment to begin with.

This solution has absolutely helped us to eliminate human errors. Most manual processes have 1% to 3% errors, some much higher. One of our processes has a 25% error rate.  The bots eliminate those errors. 

This solution also saves many hours of manual work. We have measured the number of labor hours automated to be 25,000 hours a year, so far.

We pay $3,000 per license, annually. We're using attended robots, but we will move to unattended as quickly as possible.

We chose UiPath because we simply followed NASA's lead. We wanted to move quickly and we talked to NASA. 

We're driving hard to automate as quickly as possible. Traditional IT is not able to automate all the manual work. A lot of manual work unavoidably accumulates between and around core systems.  RPA needs to be part of IT strategy to automate this residual work.  

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten. The only reason it isn't a ten is because it lacks the ability to work in a non-persistent environment. Effectively when you log in, you have to download the software every time.  However, this is also due to our choices in configuring the environment.  

My company delivers projects to clients based on their requirements. We use the tool for web and UI automation.

UiPath reduces human error. If you implement the correct logic and exception handling in your code, it's seldom wrong. The solution saves time compared to other tools, especially when you are trying to automate something that's complicated. It simplifies complex processes and makes my work easier. 

I like the Orchestrator and the AI Center. The AI Center has many pre-trained models you can adapt to your requirements. You can train your AI or upload your own model as well. You can use the AI to extract the information from structured or unstructured documents.

UiPath is easy to use and implement. The tool has so many capabilities that we can use without using any code. Everything is there, and it's a low-code solution. We only need to drag and drop the elements and apply the logic.

The UiPath community is helpful. Most of the questions have already been answered on the forum, and you can easily solve your issues there. I've done the UiPath Academy courses. I took the fundamental course and the advanced developer course. I also received an associate developer certification. You can develop a complete understanding of the tool and its capabilities using the Academy. 

UiPath's processing speed is a little slow. That's its only drawback compared to other tools. 

I have used UiPath for about two years.

UiPath is highly stable. 

I have used Microsoft Power Automate and OpenRPA. I believe UiPath is the best because of its capabilities, but I also think Power Automate is nice. Power Automate has robust integration with Microsoft platforms. That's one thing I like about it. 

I found the initial deployment to be difficult, but it became easier once I gained some experience. UiPath doesn't require any maintenance unless there are changes on the website that cause the bot to not work properly. You can find the issue in the error log. 

UiPath is a costly solution. Many of the clients choose another solution after hearing the price. 

I rate UiPath ten out of ten. UiPath is the best tool on the market, but the licensing cost is high and many clients don't have the budget. They prefer other tools like Power Automate, OpenRPA, and Automation Anywhere and all that. Otherwise, it's a great product with more capabilities than the other tools.

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. 

UiPath provides a platform for building, managing, scheduling, and monitoring automated processes. We use it for various processes, such as cost analysis, repairing permissions, and manipulating Excel data. 

UiPath enables us to build end-to-end automations, improving efficiency, enhancing customer service, and creating a human focus. The solution helps us reduce human error. UiPath saves us time because it's flexible and makes deploying processes easy. 

It's easy to build automations in UiPath. It has a simple drag-and-drop interface.

UiPath has an active user community covering a variety of applications and use cases. The forum acts as a central hub for community members to ask questions, share knowledge, and seek help with different issues.  

UiPath has added more artificial intelligence to the full version of the product. There are many options for developers to integrate AI capabilities like natural language processing and optical character recognition.

UiPath should expand its coding options and reduce its dependency on third-party resources. There should also be more flexible licenses for smaller businesses. It's hard for small companies to estimate the cost of adding users in their final budgets. UiPath could also improve error handling and capture a little more information about the execution of your processes. 

I have used UiPath for the last four or five years. 

UiPath is robust and always available. 

I have used Automation Anywhere. The solutions are similar. UiPath has advantages in scheduling and analytics, but Automation Anywhere supports all the LoadRunner requirements. 

Deploying UiPath is straightforward. The installation can take from a few hours to a day, depending on the project. You need to implement the architecture, create a data server, and integrate it with the solution.

I rate UiPath nine out of 10. It helps to learn a little coding in languages like SQL and Python. You should also take time to learn the platform with hands-on experience, instructor-led training, and online resources.  You can start with a foundational UiPath course if you're new to the platform and learn about the fundamentals of RPA processes. Then, you can create a simple automation project to reinforce what you've learned. I also recommend joining the UiPath community and asking questions on the forum. Once you have the basics down, you can try some of the more advanced programs on UiPath Academy.