UiPath Platform Reviews

We are primarily utilizing the platform within our department to gain buy-in for the customer's system.

We are a traditional development team, and using this platform has enabled us to work with multiple teams efficiently.

The governance aspect is very important to us. UFS Studio is also crucial for our operations.

There are significant delays between the technical team and the actual team. We are also missing some integrations with Google.

I cannot specify the exact amount of time we've been using it.

We have a dedicated development team. That said, we do have the resources to help with implementation.

I cannot speak on how it compares to other models or other components.

My primary use case is mainframe automation from legacy mainframes that previously hadn't been automated with other automation tools. The product worked like a dream with the mainframe automation.

We're trying to get rid of the boring, mundane tasks that people do every day so that they can spend more time doing more important things like figuring out why there are issues happening rather than just putting a Band-Aid on.

In our first year of jumping into it, we set up the infrastructure and everything, so it's been less of a year of development, but we have saved a hundred thousand hours.

The automation efficiency depends on what the job at hand is and how much it saves. But some of the tasks done constantly throughout the day, even if it's only saving five minutes, add up really fast. 

We use Task Capture all the time. We have a bank business analyst who uses it and teaches people how to use it. We're constantly getting process definition documents to review and add to our pipeline.  

Studio itself has all its great features and is easy to use. 

There are bugs here and there. My only complaint is that each time we open a new ticket, we get someone new and have to explain how everything is set up all over again. 

It would be nice if they had that somewhere on record for support.

I have been using UiPath for two years. 

It is a stable solution; everything seems to be running pretty smoothly altogether. The biggest issues are not on the UiPath end, but on our company's end like, network issues and issues like that keep popping up every now and then.

The support's been pretty decent. We have a TAM, so we have someone we are constantly in contact with.

We meet with them weekly, and they're very helpful. If we do have to open up a support ticket, there's a bigger issue that they can't help with. They usually help get the ball rolling.

Support has been pretty helpful. Like any other support though, they ask all the basic questions in the beginning just to figure out what has or hasn't been done.

My only complaint is that each time we open a new ticket, we get someone new, and we have to explain how everything is set up all over again. So it would be nice if they had that somewhere on record.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. There's plenty of documentation that is easy to follow. 

The hardest part was more on our company's network and infrastructure, trying to navigate all the hoops that we have to go through just to make sure it's secure and the network's secure. Getting access to what we need to get access to.

We're still kind of new to things and working on migrating to the cloud. We're one small team in the organization. By moving to the cloud, we're hoping we can onboard more and more teams to be able to use it and spread it throughout the company.

UiPath helped us along the way. 

There are other automation tools that the company uses, but they can't do everything that UiPath can. All of the potential automations just kept being pushed to the side until we started using it.

We used Microsoft Automate for a very short time. We started looking into it for some tasks. The issue is that we're trying to automate it deep inside our corporate network, so, we haven't really been able to use Power Automate.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. The amount we could do in one year is pretty impressive. 

We use UiPath for automation.

As a consultant, we have been involved in many client projects and deployed UiPath using a hybrid model.

UiPath enables us to implement end-to-end automation.

UiPath's User Community is good.

UiPath helped us reduce our on-premises footprint.

UiPath helped us reduce human error.

UiPath's support for various types of interfaces is the most valuable feature as it aids in automating the end-user systems we want to streamline.

I would like to have the ability to make changes at different stages of the development process without having to start from the beginning each time.

Automating with UiPath is not as easy as it appears in the advertisements.

I have been using UiPath for seven years.

UiPath is stable, but not 100 percent reliable. I would rate its stability an eight out of ten. If we need to restart the project, open the file again, or close down the program and open something else, UiPath does not behave consistently every time.

UiPath is highly scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes around one month.

I give UiPath a seven out of ten.

Maintenance is required. We need to make changes to the code due to updates in the systems on which the automation is running. There are updates in the IT environments, such as operating systems, and also in the UI part. The newer features in UiPath bring new updates, and its components necessitate modifications to the code.

My primary use case is automation. I worked in multiple companies with the same product on the same profile, and most of them were automation. The actual business use case would vary from company to company, and project to project as well.

One feature that I personally found valuable was the orchestrator. It is a pretty mature platform as of now, and it was three to four years back when I started to first use it. It has matured quite well. They had a major change a couple of years back. Our company transitioned from an older approach to a newer modern approach that they deployed. The orchestrator platform was very well-suited to the new approach - as was the development studio. It's really easy to use and intuitive. That has matured quite well as far as I can tell. These two are what I liked the most about the product.

UiPath’s ease of use and quick deployment times were great as the cloud orchestrator, which did not need much of a setup.

To build automation using UiPath is fairly simple. The studio is quite easy to use. Even now, with the community edition, it’s great. If we want to learn to start or try out something, we do not have to wait for licenses or anything else. That said, we can also get an enterprise trial. If we want to do something, learn something, even during our personal time, we can just download it. They also provide a free orchestrator version as well, so it becomes quite easy to learn and develop. 

The building, deployment, and manual deployment processes, for small-scale projects, are very easy. If we need to build something, we just publish it, and it generates the NuGet package. It's very easy to deploy there.

The materials and the training courses are all pretty well-structured to get started with.

UiPath Academy courses have assisted in the process of getting our team up to speed. The basics were there even when I started out. I was not initially an RPA developer. I was into server operations before this. The UiPath Academy training really helped a lot with the initial courses, where they give you a tour of the platform and each and every activity. For audiences who are not much into software development, these courses can guide them towards that. The building blocks got us up to speed. They have very good courses there.

Regarding the Academy, it is a great learning platform for basic tasks. However, for more complex information, I turn to UiPath Forum. Sometimes I need some Python or C# scripts or am building custom libraries there. That gets shifted onto different platforms like Stack Overflow. We Google other platforms as well for the other types of queries.

UiPath Forum is a pretty good place in terms of the user community. Most of the queries that are posted generally get answered. Sometimes, even for smaller issues, we do not go directly into UiPath support and we first try to resolve the issues via what we find in the UiPath Community. Overall, it’s a pretty good place to solve our issues, and the community as of now is pretty active.

We saved time in our IT department since we started to use this solution. UiPath handles infrastructure for the orchestrator and its maintenance. There's a pretty good amount of time saved as we had initially had a server on-prem deployment as well. However, it became cumbersome to deploy multiple databases and they have some Elasticsearch requirements and security updates that need to be regularly maintained and in sync with UiPath. Due to this infrastructure overhead, our time could be consumed maintaining everything. Without them handling the infrastructure, we'd be maintaining instead of building automations and deploying them. We realized that an automation cloud would be a better option which is why we switched.

UiPath reduced human error. That said, we do not track errors in the process. It's a good metric to track as well, however, we currently do not track it.

It reduced employees’ time on certain tasks. The main purpose of automation is to save us the number of hours that the project will take. There are many other parameters, however, the time saved is one of the big ones. 

A weakness with Academy is that, with the current updates that they have, the newer updates, the courses are not up to speed. Nowadays, Academy does not feel that intuitive and does not give sufficient information about the product to the customer.

In our current use cases, we do not need much user interaction. One shortcoming with UiPath Apps is that it cannot directly integrate with the orchestrator platform itself. For example, if we need to fetch any assets, values, or cue data from the orchestrator itself, it's basically a web platform. Even if we develop apps and want to do something based on that data, they do not have direct integration with the orchestrator. We need a separate bot, which will then interact with the orchestrator and then pass it back.

If we need ten to fifteen users who might simultaneously use apps, and we want to run a process for each of these users, then we might need fifteen licenses to do that. That is something that has been holding us back from using it, as it does not have direct orchestrator access. We need a separate bot to get the data to perform some actions.

Scaling and licensing need major improvement. I know that they have released something called Serverless Cloud Robots, where the bot machines do not need infrastructure. However, we do not generally want to run the bots or the data in the UiPath cloud as well. There are some hiccups that do happen when we run bots on another machine. That said, it might be a good feature and we can scale up and scale down more effectively.

I've used the solution for nearly four years now.

The stability has been quite good for a couple of quarters now. We had some issues two or three quarters ago, where there was a downtime of around thirty minutes which impacted assessment. After that, for the last couple of quarters, we have not seen any issues regarding the platform itself. It is pretty stable.

The product allows scaling up, however, when we deploy and run the bot, the bot does not actually run on the orchestrator. The orchestrator is just a management platform. When we need to scale up bots, what we would need to do is spin up new virtual machines. We need those virtual machines in order to scale up. This, along with the licensing affects the ability to scale.

If someone does not have a license, it cannot scale up. When comparing it to something like AWS offers, or any other cloud service, where you can rapidly scale up and rapidly scale down based upon our demands, that is currently not possible with the UiPath. We do not get to easily scale up. We need to plan in advance as to when we run our automation, what time we need to offset the loads, and which automation gets priority at that time. That becomes a bit of an issue.

As of now, scaling is a bit cumbersome, whether we are scaling up or down, and the licensing also revolves around scaling.

We use both attended and unattended automation. In the case of attended automation, scaling is a bit tricky. We need to consider licenses. Very few need the same automation to run on one hundred machines. If we do, then we would need to find a way to manage these one hundred licenses as well. It again comes down to cost.

Our thought process is that whenever possible and where we need to scale, we try to avoid human interaction, and we try to convert our bad pieces into attended automation. If some automation requires a manual login due to regulatory compliance or maybe due to capture, what we do is have these login paths that we take in as unattended input. Then where it’s possible, we would run it as an unattended mode and maybe then pass on the output to the attended mode.

We have support from UiPath, however, I'm not sure what model we are on. 

The support is not as responsible as we would expect. It's not bad, but it's not good.

The response time, the overall solutions that they provide, and the workarounds are okay. It's a mix of everything. We've had somewhat of a mixed experience with them.

Neutral

UiPath handles infrastructure, maintenance, and updates for the Automation Cloud - the infrastructure being the orchestrator infrastructure. The robot infrastructure is handled by us.

I was involved in the initial deployment of UiPath in our organization's deployment process. The deployment process is pretty straightforward with automation cloud data, so we did not need to worry about that. The administration is pretty straightforward as well. They have all of these access models, folders, and groupings. It's very easy, even for a new user that needs access to a particular box to run. It's also easy to maintain.

In terms of deployment on the cloud, there is no overhead. The administration process is simple. Maybe it took us around two to three days of initial setup. Most of the time was spent brainstorming on how we would need to structure our use case. That was what took the majority of the time. Once we decided on that, it was pretty easy. It can be done in one day. The process is also ongoing as the requirements change and the roles change, and it always requires some sort of maintenance, taking out users, taking in new users, et cetera. However, that's pretty easy.

In terms of the deployment of individual bots, it is pretty easy. The manual deployment is also pretty simple. We deploy it from the studio. We get a bundle package and we upload it at the studio level as well as the orchestrator, and it's done. This is a straightforward model. We do have a CI/CD pipeline setup for enterprises where we avoid manual deployments. In that case, we do not use UiPath CI/CD. We do use Git and pipelines to push our packages directly to UiPath.

I can't speak to if there has been an ROI or not.

The licensing could be more flexible. They might have a different enterprise cost strategy for each of the licenses. The license is rigid in that you cannot generally scale up. To scale up, we have to have a license procured before we can run a bot there.

I am not involved in the comparison between Uipath and its competitors, such as Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere, or any other platform.

We do not really have clients in healthcare, however, my previous company has mainly evolved into what I can say is a pharmaceutical supply chain. The company is an ordering platform for pharmaceuticals. I'm not sure whether I can consider that as a healthcare pharmaceutical or supply chain use case.

I had done some trial POCs around the UiPath Apps feature. We did some basic trials within our team, however, we do not have any end-users who actively use UiPath Apps.

We're still at an early stage in terms of using AI in our automation via UiPath. We tried out some POCs, and I'm also just getting training on that as well. We do not have any production use cases right now that go into full AI or ML.

In general, they have a good ecosystem of developers. It would be easier to set up and use it. However, if a new company has heavier workloads and needs scaling capability based on time, they’ll need to calculate their requirements. For example, if I process 1,000 to 2,000 transactions per day and I need ten robots to do this and it's fixed every day, then it's fine. That said, if I have varying workloads, where the workload is the last week of the month and the workload is very high, maybe I’ll need twenty or thirty bots to accommodate this workload, while, for the rest of the month, I’ll just need around five bots. That's twenty-five bots that I’ll need to purchase, with many idle most of the time. That is one issue that needs to be planned correctly during the initial stage. 

Overall, I would rate UiPath eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for interactions with customers. For those coming through the contact center, we are automating responses and actions.

The solution has improved the company in that when a customer needs to come in and have a consultation with an agent, it opens up a video conference to actually see the other end of the product, the full consultation, instead of being described over the phone. It makes the meetings much more effective.

One of the most valuable aspects of the solution is that we are able to automate a process that doesn't have an easy API or integration. It’s an easy way to complete an outcome without having to read another application.

I have seen a reduction in human error. The assumptions that agents were making previously via verbal communication compared to actually physically seeing something are now completely different.

UiPath has freed up employees' time. I don’t have the exact metric in relation to that, however. Also, this additional time has enabled employees to focus on higher-value work. We’re not chasing issues that can be seen physically, instead of trying to gain understanding by going back and forth via calling or email or chat.

It’s my understanding that UiPath has saved our organization money.

I have used UiPath's Academy courses. It has helped a lot in terms of helping users to understand the whole process. It goes under the hood to help users figure out how everything gets applied and then how we can write code as well. It gives a solid direction of what it takes to be a good developer.

There are definitely some changes I would like to see. I’d like to see, for example, more note code for applications. Some of the complexity of the scripting is hard. If note code was there, it would be easy to just scale it.

I've been using the solution for five to six months.

The stability so far has been good. We just have got to make sure that we don't change anything on the back end and adjust it. Right now, it's a critical path that we need to be aware of in needing adjustments. It offers a great interchange.

Scalability is good in terms of adding more RPA processes across the board. There's also a question of, when things change and adjust, how it reacts to those changes. Scalability can cause issues.

Right now, the number of people who use it in the organization is small. There are
maybe three or four engineers. It's used at a high level. There are more in-depth engineers that are involved with it.

Technical support has been pretty good for asking questions and giving responses. I'm not sure anyone would get a perfect ten out of ten, however, they are good. To be perfect, support would always have to have an answer and do all the work for me. 

The solution was chosen when I was brought on board. I'm not sure what was used previously.

That said, I am familiar with other RPA solutions. For example, Blue Prison is more foreign to me, compared to UiPath. Automation Anywhere seems very familiar from what I have seen, however, I don't really have a good understanding of all the theory, technically, except in terms of UiPath.

The initial setup started off as straightforward, however, it can easily get complex. For example, not knowing the other applications and what it takes to interact with them will make things a bit more complicated. Also, the APIs versus actually scripting information, especially when you're talking databases or backend reports, et cetera, gets complicated.

Our deployment took three months.

The CTO and development team were involved in the process of implementation.

We deployed the solution ourselves, internally.

We have yet to see an ROI, as we just started using the product.

The pricing, in comparison to others in the market, is fair. 

We don't scale that big. If we scaled larger, we might have different opinions about pricing. 

We have the solution on the cloud. It hasn't affected our footprint too much as we haven't really integrated too much at this point.

We use a mix of attended and unattended automation, however, for the most part, it's attended.

I would advise companies to train as many people as they can through the training portal and provide simple boxes and procedures to execute on things that are scalable components.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. A perfect ten can't happen. However, I'd rate it at a seven due to the fact that it's got the possibility of the cloud, which is great. While I don't have a problem with scalability, there's an issue around how much more it is going to cost. There's a question around scaling and ROI and if it is worth it. 

We used to maintain a lot of Excel sheets for lead generation and other activities. UiPath helped us to automate those processes and clear our workloads so that we could focus on other main tasks.

It saved a lot of time on tasks that could be quite redundant. Fetching data and maintaining the machines and regularly updating them. That's the only thing that I was using it for. Using UiPath saved me about 10 to 12 hours on a weekly basis.

It allowed me to delegate mundane tasks to personal automations and to focus on more important tasks. By not having to do tasks that don't add value or skills, I could focus on tasks that were more important and that added value to my skills or targets. That brings much more satisfaction.

Also, the ability for employees to delegate mundane tasks to personal automations meant that we did not have to hire a person dedicated to doing those particular tasks. We could use the tool to do those tasks. It helped save those costs. On that front it helped in business operations.

UiPath was quite useful in terms of getting data from thousands of webpages online and arranging it in a predefined format. You can easily create robots and define operations in UiPath.

I come from a non-technical background. You need a little bit of technical knowledge to use it. We had a demonstration of how to use the platform, but it's easy to use. It helps in automating tasks which otherwise you would have to do manually.

The desktop Assistant tool provides a personal automation launchpad so that you can easily access and run automations. That's important because you don't have to go to someone every time you face a problem, or every time you have to run an automation process. It helps make you independent so that you can do your own tasks.

Other things I like about it include:

• Its dashboard is quite easy to use and you don’t need to have a programming background to understand it.
• You can record screens in Excel and download it from the cloud.
• You can also get quite a load of data from the web and use it for your processes without any manual effort.
  

For me, it was quite an effective tool because I hadn't used any automation tool previously. It was quite new for me and it took time to adjust to it and understand it. At times, some processes took longer with the tool, initially. But when you do them on a regular basis, you understand it better and it takes much less time. Setting up the systems could be difficult initially. It would be better if it were more user-friendly for non-technical users.

I used UiPath for less than one year.

It's quite stable and reliable. We had no issues.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup of UiPath in our organization, but I think it took less than a month to deploy it. It's also an ongoing process after deployment. There are a lot of things that need to be done.

About 10 to 15 people were using it in our organization. The users were mainly in IT where they were using it for central management and other automation purposes.

The fact that we didn't have to hire a resource specifically for doing certain tasks is how the ROI could be calculated. It also saved time for the existing employees.

There is a trial version available. You can go for the trial version first and then buy it and scale it per your needs. Try this tool. Go for it. It's definitely worth a try. If yours is a large organization, try the Community Edition first to get the hang of it. After that, move on to its Enterprise version.

What I learned from using UiPath is that there are tools available in the market that can essentially make your life a lot easier. You don't have to worry about doing certain tasks, maintaining them, continuously updating them. Their backups are always available, even if you lose something. They are always easily accessible on any device.

We use it for financial use cases: purchase-to-pay processes, reconciliation processes, vendor payment, and merchant payments. This is just in finance. Then, we have retail order processing, order creation, PO generation, delivery note generation, and all those things in retail. We even have banking processes as well, such as a payments portal. We use it in most of the fields.

We don't use cloud licenses. Most of our licenses are on-prem.

We use both attended and unattended automation in UiPath.

We are partnered with UiPath. Sometimes, UiPath refers customers to us, bringing us business. We also give them business.

We have a third-party order processing portal, which keeps on changing its UI very often and has elements that keep on shuffling between the metadata. What we had in this case was the script running was shuffling the elements, and we are disabled that thing. Then, we used the selector technology instead. Selector technology is very important for all our UI-based processes. We rely on it. 

We used the AI Fabric functionality in one of our projects. We had to categorize users' reviews based on the sentiment scores. Everything was already available, including the model. So, we just have to click on all those things from UiPath now.

The new features that they are adding in, these are very different from other RPA tools in the market:

• AI Fabric
• Integration with different data models
• You can do all the data processing, data mining, etc., in the back-end UiPath. 
• You don't need a separate tool for data mining or other cognitive abilities. You can do all the cognitive abilities in UiPath. 
• UiPath Apps, which they're bringing in just now, is a really good thing. It has a good user interface.

Most RPA tools do not directly have these features. Also, we don't have to rely on other tools in order to develop these things. We can directly develop and integrate them with UiPath on one platform. So, we don't have to struggle within multiple platforms.

UiPath Apps is available only on Community. So, this was a best case scenario for us. It was pretty good. The only thing is that it has to be more advanced. Now, it is very basic. I would like more integration with the UI elements. It should be more user-friendly, especially if we go for any other application development. For example, in other UI development platforms, you can easily drag and drop to develop in a UI. However, it is a very initial phase for UiPath Apps, and maybe in the future, they might improve this.

We have used the Picture in Picture functionality for a few attended automations, where the user is monitoring or we are installing a new interface. Sometimes, in my experience, Picture In Picture is a bit buggy. It takes over your control, then the controls get mixed. That is one of few issues that I have found. Other than that, Picture In Picture works pretty well.

I had an instance when UiPath crashed on my computer. Then, the code that I was working on also crashed. This was a very crucial process for us, but we apparently didn't have a backup. UiPath also didn't have any way to recover that code. This was something which I found very strange, because ideally the source company should have a mainframe where they can recover a code. Or, if I give them a corrupted damage file, then they could easily recover that code. 

The stability is pretty good when we follow the best practices, i.e., whatever is in the REFramework. 

Scalability is something that we are still figuring out. RPA is something which we cannot do for everything, because there is a small gap between profit and the cost.

The support has been pretty good so far. The response time could improve, then it would be much better. However, once we get a ticket assigned to a technical person, then it is pretty straightforward. They are very fast, know their job, and know how to resolve the issue.

The on-prem setup is straightforward. There is very detailed documentation. We always get support from UiPath, so it is not difficult. I have never faced any issues, but I have only deployed on a small scale.

The timeline of the project depends on the project's complexity. Usually, the due diligence and everything else takes about two or three weeks. Then, the design takes another one or two weeks before we start with the development, depending on the inputs.

I get involved with small client setups.

There is a client-facing team of around 25 people who do due diligence and design work. There is also our back-end/technical delivery team, which includes mostly developers, a product project manager, project owner, and developer lead, who are there mostly for their technical abilities, not for their design abilities. 

The price of Orchestrator is pretty high in general as well as compared to other solutions, because Automation Anywhere does not charge for its Control Room.

We can develop our own packages and integrate them, which is pretty good. Other tools don't have that.

There are a lot of cons with Automation Anywhere, which we are using. They deployed a new version, 2019, which is very buggy, and they are still working on that. I don't know how or why they released it to the public. They did so much testing, but it is still buggy.

Power Automate (previously Softomotive) needs to improve on its UI. The ease of use is not there with this solution.

Go for it. It is a pretty good tool, which is straightforward and easy to use. They have training in place. Even if you are new to it, you can go ahead and learn to do it. 

They are bringing in new things. You can automate, integrate, and test things. It is even used for mobile testing. It is pretty good in that case. For most of people's use cases, UiPath will suffice for their use cases.

I would rate the solution as an eight (out of 10). 

I am using it for a project that we did for our client e.g HR automation in which we create, update, and delete the employee the database which includes master data management, active directory, and SNOW as the used environments for the solution.

UiPath helps our clients achieve their goals like with RPA. Now, with UiPath they get their work done within half of the time that it is done manually. They have more accuracy in their tasks and it has become easier to maintain. Before they reach the office they already have all the work done by the bot in their desk.

The tech support that UiPath provides to the licensed user it is really helpful. There were some scenarios when my issue was resolved within 24 hours. Also, I like the constant updates that UiPath provided to us.

As in my opinion, debugging needs more improvement. Also, if we get any other tool or technology which helps extract information from the scanned or handwritten document than that will be really helpful as a user and for our clients as well.

I have been using UiPath for two years.