UiPath Platform Reviews

We use all of the products in the UiPath platform.

We have use cases ranging from back-office to manufacturing, which include large project management, accounts payable, accounts receivable, and treasury management. Most of the areas in the company have processes that we have automated.

We run our automations in the Citrix virtual environment, although we are unhappy with Citrix. It is pretty bad, and it's very difficult to keep up the performance. AVS or Azure do not offer a good service yet, but we are looking for alternatives with respect to the virtual environment.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a four. We have been using UiPath for quite a long time, and we have seen this evolving. It has been getting better over the last few years.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training between three and four. The training is good, but the content doesn't have the depth required for people to go ahead and do something if they're not technical. It's still pretty high-level.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was three to four weeks. The process is getting better, but when we started in 2016 and UiPath was small, it was good but needed refinement. I would have rated it three out of five back then.

Using this solution is enabling us to move the drive for digital transformation to the core. We can now take automation to a level it has never been to.

In terms of eliminating human errors, we have seen benefits. With humans performing, the accuracy was at approximately ninety percent. Our accuracy with automation is now close to one hundred percent.

With respect to saving time, we have seen FTE savings but the numbers are confidential.

The most valuable feature of Studio is the ease of use. It is really easy for people to learn the basics and the learning curve is not steep.

Orchestrator makes it very easy to manage the platform.

Orchestrator needs to have better integration to include business users.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution between four and five. Stability has been getting better. For example, Studio used to have a lot of bugs when you were developing and when you were capturing the screens. Now it's been getting better, but there is still room to improve.

Orchestrator used to lag quite a bit when there were a high number of transactions, and there is still room to improve.

We have at least a few hundred people involved in our automation program.

The technical support for this solution is pretty good. Whenever we had trouble they were always there.

We did not use another RPA prior to this one. We were looking at improving the efficiency of processes and bringing some innovative solutions to automating tasks and processes. This is when we decided to try RPA. 

We implemented this solution on our own.

We have seen ROI but I cannot share the specifics.

We did a very extensive vendor review. We had all of the major providers of RPA solutions in 2016, and UiPath was the one that came through in terms of fulfilling all of the criteria.

Looking ahead at the features that are being released this year, they seem to be what we have been looking for.

My advice for anybody researching this type of solution is to choose wisely. There are a lot of products out there, but few of them actually work.

This is a good solution and they are releasing some features that I am looking forward to, but there is still room to improve. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is around manual conversion of data from one system to another. These are big processes right now.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator and the robots.

Our organization is more efficient. The people that you're automating processes from are happy they are getting done. They are excited and like to be a part of the process. It's also new technology. It's innovative. and people enjoy being around that.

We don't have a baseline metric for the elimination of human errors. So, we don't know how many errors a human actually makes doing some of the conversion data entry processes. We assume they are about 90 percent accurate and UiPath is 100 percent accurate.

We have saved 18,000 hours so far this year.

With the robotics and management of Orchestrator, we are able to kick things off. We are starting to get more out of the scheduling of these and into more on demand triggered events, such as a RESTful service calls and things of that nature.

The ease of using the platform for automating your company's processes is a five out of five. It is super simple. Everyone who we have in our robotics team had no experience with automation or robotics previously. They went online took the classes from UiPath. They started with the Community Edition, just to play with it themselves, then they were probably experts within a couple of months.

Everyone has used the UiPath Academy training. I would rate it around a three or four out of five. While it's simple and you get a decent understanding of what's there, you still have to dedicate on an awful lot of time doing the automations to become proficient at them.

While it looks like it is being addressed, getting the unattended robots to every person's machine in the company and executing on their machines needs improvement.

I would rate the stability as a five out of five. it hasn't gone down yet.

We have a team of four people involved in our automation program.

I have only used the technical support to fix a licensing discrepancy. They were okay.

Everybody said, "We had to do more with less," from the C-suite on down. RPA is the only way that you can do that which seemed viable. So, we tried it out.

We were previously using VM. 

The initial setup is straightforward. With our proof of concept, it took us two to three weeks to develop it, then another week to make it production ready. When we deployed it into production, we had the license. We installed the robot and had it running through Windows Scheduler before we had Orchestrator, and it just worked

We started with a proof of concept, had it running in production, and bought the license that day.

We did have a systems integrator who helped us. Overall, for the initial implementation, I would rate them a five out of five. They came in, and it was great.

We have been able to achieve our ROIs on pretty much every process that we have done. You see it almost initially, as soon as the process starts running. However, until we get the actual feedback of, "Yes, I can tell this is saving us time and effort." It takes about a month for the business unit to really recognize it.

We haven't technically saved money because we haven't gotten rid of anybody, so our CFO will not let us claim money. However, we do calculate time given back. Right now, I believe for this year, we've been given back 18,000 hours so far.

Our licensing costs are around $40,000 a year.

We looked at the big three: Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and UiPath. Then, we chose UiPath because of cost and ease of use. The training was there. It was so quick and easy to pick up.

I would recommend UiPath. It's easy to use and learn. It just works and doesn't break. It's cost-effective.

We run our automations in virtual environments, such as Citrix. Orchestrator sits in VMware along with unattended robots. It kicks everything off behind the scenes. Most processes are set on a time schedule.

We prefer unattended bots. We're moving into that real-time trigger, but still like to run unattended to give some form of user interface for the user to call them.

I would definitely rate it a 10 out of 10 because of what it delivers and allows, along with the benefits. You can also see on their strategy on the roadmap, it's just expanding and getting better.

Our most prevalent use case is invoice processing.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator, attended bots, and unattended bots.

It comes down to saving people time to be able to look at high-value tasks.

The solution has helped us eliminate human error with 100 percent testing and accuracy. This is only where there are exceptions, which generally tends to be under five percent of the time.

The solution has saved us time. It does depends on the specific process. For one specifically, it took a week out of each month, then we were able to process the same reconciliation process within minutes.

Studio is the most valuable feature from the aspect of developing a bot. It is very nice from the drag and drop perspective. It is very easy to follow and has low guidance from the technical aspect.

I would like to have cloud in the next release. It's one of those things that allows customers to be able to have an easier access point.

There are still areas for improvement for some of the drag and drop features and moving more to a bit of a lower code perspective.

I would rate stability as a five out of five. Compared to competitors where we've had instances where either exceptions are kicked out or the workflow breaks, UiPath does not encounter those issues.

About 50 people in our organization are involved in our automation program.

The technical support is very good. They are very good partners.

The experience overall has been really great with UiPath. The culture and individuals at the company really help make the project easy to do.

We had a very manual process that needed to be addressed because it was taking up way too much time of employees' efforts.

The initial setup was straightforward. Going through the certification process, it enables you with the tools to be able to implement at an easy level for low-hanging use cases.

It took about a month from the time we purchase our UiPath license until our first bot was live.

We used a consultant for the deployment. I would rate our experience with them as a five out of five. 

I would rate ease of use as a four out of five. We had a bunch of people that do implementations from a development aspect for our use cases. The solution has been very easy to be able to implement for our specific use cases, given the capabilities of the platform.

We have seen ROI from this solution. We saw it almost immediately in regard to performance benefits around accuracy, timeliness, and the ability to do 100 percent testing.

We also evaluated Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. We chose UiPath because of stability of the platform, ease of use, and the deployment factors are much easier with UiPath.

We have used UiPath Academy for RPA training. I would rate it as a five out of five. Compared to competitors, the UiPath Academy offers a very easy path to certification. The way that the curriculum is laid out, it is very nice and easy to follow.

Do your due diligence.

We have probably use attended bots more heavily. They're very nice and everybody has a good experience with them working alongside actual humans.

I would rate the overall product an eight out of ten. There are additional features that probably could be rolled out. I think there are on the roadmap.

Our primary use case is IP invoice automation.

We are currently using Orchestrator and bots.

It gives you a technology or ability to build a solution on any legacy system.

I love Orchestrator: 

• The configuration part
• The amount of keys
• Transaction reporting
• Logs
• Accessibility on the iPhone.

VM was on the service for high density. It is finicky at times. The latest release is a lot more stable. However, I've had a two week production outage where DLLs weren't registered and someone from Vegas had to login for eight hours onto the fraud service to work it out. Even though they uninstalled and re-installed it, all the different apps still wasn't working. So, I  have lost a bit of faith in it to be honest.

I would like to have cloud stuff back in Australia and hosted there. I want everything in SaaS, bots included.

While it has eliminated human errors, it has created other errors.

I would like something that better identifies the processes. If it could watch the computer, then work it out for me, that would be good.

Now that I've done an upgrade, it seems to be a lot better. Because I was running high density on the 2016.2 or 2016.3. I had a lot of problems, but I couldn't work out whether or not it was just UiPath or our client app that was timing out. But, we noticed that if you login as console, you have far less issues than if you run high density.

These days, the stability is a four out of five. Back in the day, it wasn't.

In my old organization, 50 to 100 people were involved.

I have a bit of a different issue because at my old company that I just left, I was only paying $3,600 USD per bot. I turned up at my new company, and because of our size, we are paying $8,000 per bot.  

The support is not good. I had a two week production outage.

There was a business problem, and we needed to work at how to solve it. The partner was a big driver in this process.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

It took two weeks from the time we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot in production.

We used Blackbook.ai, and our experience with them was awesome.

We have seen ROI. The last company that I work for was trying to get 1000 FTEs out the door, and I think that they are already at 60. In Australia, at my current company, we are already at 10 FTEs. Just in Australia, we have save a million dollars, and maybe five million in India.

The reduction of 10 FTEs has saved us time.

At the last place that I worked, it was $700,000 USD.

Everything that I read about Blue Prism suggest that it is too heavy and takes too much development to ramp up.

I looked at Automation Anywhere for the price point, especially for a PoC. Between Blackbook.ai and what I saw already with UiPath, I just thought UiPath was the better option.

Scout it out. I am going to try to work with this company a different way than what I did than last time, e.g., federated.

I would rate the overall product as a nine out of 10. It's an enabler. It seems pretty good. There is a lot of investment and new things.

I would rate the ease of use of the platform as a four out of five. It is pretty easy to use but it is not doing everything for me. I still have to do stuff.

I would rate the UiPath Academy as a four out of five.

We have a bunch of uses for the product so it is hard to judge which is the most important. We started working with data structures for websites and then moved into more complex automation like speech detection and making more cognitive decisions based on rules. Our automation using bots is essentially on the verge of using artificial intelligence.

There are a lot of ways this product has improved our organization. Even a simple project can bring us a lot of recognition. One example is retrieving passwords on Amazon. Imagine that you have a user who forgets their password. Amazon lets you reset your password but there are a lot of steps. In the background, Amazon is validating that you are the person that you are saying that you are with a lot of manual steps. We automated that with a bot and other tools and the customer experience skyrocketed. We reduced the processing by five minutes just for that service. Not only did we apply that solution for one country, but we also applied it to seven different countries. It was a success story.

What I think is the best thing about UiPath is that it is fairly easy to understand and learn how to use it. One of the most valuable things about the product is the improvement they are making with the tools. They are offering around thirteen new products now. With these additions, there is a lot of value-added enhancement that we can provide via the automation to augment what we already have implemented.

The studio's Orchestrator is the tool that we use in order to create the scripts for the bot. It is what enables us to deliver automation. Having these new technologies within the studio is what enables us to be more creative. With the Orchestrator we can monitor the bots, we can "orchestrate" them, and we can deliver that tool to customers so that they can manage their bots. It is really like digital workforce management. If we created a bot for a business, usually it would just do its job and the customer would not see what the bots are really doing. With this tool, the client has that opportunity to see what the bots are doing. 

The bots automate the work that otherwise would have to be done with other interventions and resources, so reallocation of resources and focus is the most valuable thing overall.

There are a lot of things that can be done to the product to make it better. The feature list that I develop between releases is often covered new releases of the product. That is good. But there are still a lot of enhancements that I would like to have within the Orchestrator and the queues. For example, how we manage the queues is an important thing.

I would like to see the ability to have other ways to look for one transaction within the queue. If I am looking for a single transaction, it would be good to have a filter that you can use to specify a detail, like just looking for a reference name that starts with a particular letter — but not the entire reference, but wildcards. Those are the kind of things that can be enhanced and make a big difference. Maybe they are not on the roadmap for the company when it comes to upgrades at this point because those are tiny things within the tools. But even those tiny little things can make a lot of difference in the functionality of the tools.

On a scale of one to five where five is the best and one is the worst, I would rate the stability of this platform a five. The stability of the platform is very good. During the four years that we have been working with UiPath, we have not encountered any issues with stability because of the platform. There are always issues with the environment and that can affect stability and performance, but with the platform itself, there are no issues.

Within the RPA suite, we have around 40 people working with the product. But we also have to consider that we usually engage people from other places to contribute to every single project. There are a lot more users than are working with us within the project and within our immediate company team. The peripheral people are going to be people from security, people from IT, people with specific business backgrounds, etcetera. The number of users and the product itself are scalable.

The technical support is actually pretty good. We worked a lot with our CSM (Customer Service Management). They are always doing a great job to find someone to help us out when we have issues. They get the right person for the right issue. For now, if I had to rate it from one to five where five is the best, it is going to be a five.

At the beginning, we would try to automate tasks using spreadsheets where we had calculations. We had macros and things of that sort to automate small tasks. The next step in moving to a new era was to turn to RPAs. There were a lot of things that we needed to implement through this new technology. So we did have another solution before for some types of automation but it wasn't really a dedicated system for automation and it wasn't capable of this scale.

We have a turn-around time of four to six weeks. In order to go to implementation and production, it depends on the complexity of the project. A normal project that is not that complex will obviously take less time. We have to take into consideration the time that we have in assessment, in the evaluation of the project, and in development, and only after that do we do testing to put it into production.

There are, of course, always challenges, but not all of them come because of the UiPath platform. There's a lot of things that are an issue because of the environment or the target applications that we're using. It is often more because of that than the platform itself.

We have in-house developers, we have a QA team, and we have a training and communication team specifically for the RPA suite. We also have managers for the teams, the support team, and solution architects. We do our own implementations and assist others in doing theirs.

We usually try to calculate return on investment within a year or two depending on the project. But we start to look at the benefits from the first month we put the product into production. Not really the ROI exactly, but the benefits. What I mean by benefit is if the automation is achieving the goals it was intended to achieve. Once we pass through the cost of implementation, license cost and any additional expenditure of resources, then we look into ROI.

We have seen a lot of benefits in a variety of ways depending on the projects. Most of what we have been seeing is capacity creation. There are a lot of things that can be introduced to automate processes. If there is work that can't be handled by a team and they are not going to meet SLA (Service Level Agreement), creating bots and putting bots into their team to take over redundant tasks is letting the team use resources differently. It creates additional capacity so the team can focus on more important things — like quality or process. That enables the business unit to accomplish their tasks while raising quality. The bot can always be depended on to do a specific task in the same way. If we have the right steps and if we have the right process to execute, the output from the bot is going to be right. That is another incredible benefit. Of course and for example, giving the customer a response in one hour instead of five hours enhances the customer experience. Proper use of automation can do all of these things.

Bots can also be used in eliminating human errors. Being cautious in estimating that, it could be as much as a 60% to 80% reduction. It will be reducing human error, but there is always some level of error in processing.

The percentage of time saved using UiPath bots depends on the projects, but most processes can save teams 85% of the time they would spend on tasks that can be automated. Some other automated tasks we have the efficiency go up to 90 or 95%. That is pretty good and a great way to allow for the reallocation of resources.

The cost depends on how many licenses we have and how we use the bots. We have a rate for attended bots and a rate for unattended bots. The price itself depends on the project and the number of licenses required. The prices, in general, are good — actually they are the best — but they could always be cheaper. Right now there is no one that is cheaper. The cost is in line with what we thought that it should be.

In 2016, we started to evaluate vendors. We went through Automation Anywhere and a lot of the competing products. We decided to go with UiPath not only because of the cost and the model that they have, but also the relationship that they have with customers. They actually care for you. They are always looking to provide you with the newest and best technologies. They try to make you use it in the best ways and they try to make you test out new features and provide feedback. If you need it and you realize that it's really good, then they help you make it happen. That is the best thing. They are being humble even though they are growing a lot. It is what actually made us go through UiPath.

We are using the entire UiPath tool. We are using the studios, we are using the orchestrator, we are using the bots. That is both unattended and attended bots.

We have two different environments. One is on-prem within Costa Rica data center and then we have another in the U.S. that is on an internal cloud and we use VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure) and Citrix.

The virtual environment is actually pretty functional. There are some pros and cons. The pro is that it enables you to add virtual machines if you need them. The con might be that sometimes you need to enable connections that are not enabled. You might have to go through firewalls, go through network issues, etcetera. With that, it is a little bit more complex to build out automation sometimes. You have to go through configuration hurdles when you encounter them.

On a scale of one to five with five being very easy and one being very hard, I would rate the ease of use of the platform as a five. It is a five because when comparing it with the other RPA (Robotic Process Automation) platforms, it is easier to navigate within the studio and it is more comprehensive. There is a saying in usability that if you need to take more than five clicks in order to find what you're looking for, it is not easy. Finding what you want in one or two clicks is what makes a product easy to use.

We use UiPath Academy RPA training all the time. Every new employee or intern that we employ in our company goes through the RPA academy training first. That is kind of the bible for us. On a scale of one to five, five being very beneficial and one being not beneficial at all, I would rate the academy as a five. 

My advice for anyone considering this solution is very simple: It is worth it, go ahead and give it a try. You will like it. Try to experience everything within UiPath and go through every single feature that they have and can provide currently before you commit to it. The company's support will back you up and they will make sure that you find what you are looking for.

On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the best and one is the worst, I would rate the product as an eight. To get a ten, a product should be perfect. Nothing is perfect. It is not a nine because it is just a cautious rating. In technology, we always say that for every question there is an answer that says "depending on...[something]". Depending on what you're looking at, it is going to be an eight or it's going to be a nine. It should never be a ten.

We're starting within our finance group, so a lot of different processes in our finance group are being automated. Our main project was for our tax department, extracting data from PDFs and putting them into Excel.

We have two people involved with RPA in our company.

We just purchased this solution last week so we're still installing everything. We did automate four processes with the community edition. The length of time in development varied by the process. The longer ones required help from UiPath. They came on-site for the PoC, so that helped us out. Some other easy ones we just did ourselves within a couple of days.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would say that it is a four. But with Studio X, I think it will probably be a five. I say four because as you get more complicated with your processes, you need to learn how to code and there's a brunt learning curve. A lot of people will get turned off by that. So, I made some good sessions with Studio X, it's all drag and drop, mostly, so that's perfect for the business users.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. We are actually in the process of taking it right now. It's good that they have something like that available. There are not that many who have aced it.

So far we haven't gone too far, but I expect that people will be a lot happier because they won't be doing the jobs that they don't like doing. They'll have more time to learn and up-skill technologies like this, which can help further their careers rather than just learning, or not learning by copying and pasting.

The most valuable feature is automating processes and tasks, giving users time for more value-added activities. This results in cost savings.

The free community edition allowed us to test out the technology before investing in it.

I would like a better ability to connect and integrate with other software systems. An example would be integration with data and business intelligence tools. I don't think they have a native connector yet. So, just something that a user can connect, and have RPA in the middle, would be helpful.

I would also like to see an easier UI for the user. It may have already been taken care of with Studio X, but I think if they keep improving that, it's going to get a lot of people interested because users are attracted to it.

We were just using community edition for about six months.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. I mean we haven't used it too much so we haven't really pushed the boundaries, but for the stuff we've, done I would say it is stable.

Their sales and pre-sales support is very good. They've been very willing to come onsite and help us out and help with our pilot as well.

We got introduced by RPA from PWC. They came and talked at one of our finance summits.

The paid version, I'm still learning how to use, how to connect everything together. There is still a little learning period for that as well. Learning how Orchestrator works, how the licensing works and things like that, were necessary after using the community edition.

UiPath helped us with our PoC and they were great. I mean they came for free and through just a pilot or a proof of concept. We could actually see if the technology works for a use case.

Before we start anything we evaluate the process and we take down how many hours it saves, the costs, and ROI. In our main project, it took someone approximately three hundred hours a year to do all that data extraction, data input, and that also came along with errors because someone could fat-finger the value.

Then, through the PoC, they're able to turn around within two days. A bot can basically do that entire process and do it error-free as well.

It is a savings of three-hundred hours, and the cost savings is a multiplier of hourly pay.

We also use it as an ETL tool sometimes, so instead of paying for an API connection, we can use RPA. Simply just to run a simple report of the system.

I don't have any other software vendors to compare it to, but I would say if you're fully utilizing it then there's definitely an ROI in it. Obviously, if you have only one process running five minutes a day with the bot, it's not worth it. For us, what we did was we built enough use cases before we bought that enterprise license to make the ROI on it. We've got eight or ten and then we realized that we can cover that license cost easily with ROI before we purchased it.

Ultimately, we realized ROI within six months.

We got purchased the basic minimum package and it was around $35,000 USD, annually.

We tested out Kryon RPA, and we looked but did not test Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. Those two were out of our price range, and at that time, neither of them had a free community edition, so we couldn't test out the technology.

UiPath sort of fit our company well because it was priced reasonably, and they also had a free version so we could test out the technology. Ultimately, we chose UiPath because of the price. It was not as expensive as Blue Prism or Automation Anywhere. It has a free community version where you can test new technology, which was huge. They also have a local office next to us so we can get their help pretty easily.

They have announced features in the next release, and I think that they are all the things that users would want. There are easier ways to document processes and a better and more user-friendly UI. A lot of people just got turned off by having to learn code. So that was a lot easier, and then being able to track all your RPA projects and the ROI on them saves time. Doing them manually is time-consuming. Fortunately, we're a small company because I couldn't imagine if you're trying to implement this for a bigger company.

My advice for anybody who is researching this solution is to, first of all, do their own research on the ratings and independent research. Secondly, I would just say a lot of them now have free community editions, so there's nothing holding you back from testing out the technology and seeing if it works. I think Blue Prism is the only one that doesn't have it now. That's a really high cost and a barrier to seeing if the technology works. Just going and validating the software and doing a simple automation task is important. All of those vendors have free training so you can just go step-by-step and learn something. I think that's the biggest thing someone can do, and then obviously finding enough processes within your company as well.

This is a good solution but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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 play significantly in the BFSI and healthcare space. A lot of use cases have been related to BFSI. Insurance is much bigger, with claims and underwriting, policy admin, health benefits, and so on so forth. There are also good use cases on the functional level, HR and finance, and that cuts across industries. 

As an example, looking at fatality insurance for pets, clients had a high volume of documents come in, claims in all different forms, and they had to apply logic eligibility. There's a simple rule of whether you allow or disallow. If they don't allow the claim, then there's a comp process. By a sheer ability to read whichever way the document comes in, clients are able to load the system and quickly get the eligibility. 

This dramatically improves their claims operation by a big margin. Whenever there is some complexity in one, then we do an exception. We crunched the time so well and made the process so cost-effective it has given the client a huge benefit.

The democratization, automation, and attended automation, all of these are pretty good features. Those are all good value add to what it was there previously. 

The moment a machine takes over, there are fewer errors. That is inherent. When you say value, that is the cost-benefit. 

We have seen a lot of benefits on the backend, but then the algorithm is constrained, which can't transform because of the older technology. 

Sometimes in their partner communication, they aren't consistent. This maybe is related to the fact they are growing as a company.

The solution is fairly stable. 

The initial setup is always complex. Clients don't know the hardware, the licensing, or how it works. Any large organization will always have an initial hurdle. 

We have roughly around 164-165 trained RPA credentials on the engineering side, all on UiPath.

You do have complexity when it comes to maintenance, as you get to 50, 100 bots. 

As an example, one of the customers for whom we did an early bird, we estimated we could save this one division of their company $44 million. They only may have to invest about $4 million. There's $44.5 million for about 12 months. That's what we think we could save. 

The adoption of RPA has definitely been increasing and we know that all of that has been largely in the back office. In the back office, it's easier to check ROI. We've actually gone beyond ROI because ROI is a very simple statement, so we start showing clients value.

How long it takes to achieve ROI actually depends upon the client's way of implementing it. For example, some people will wait to take away the manual effort while they will stand by. Because what if it doesn't work? What if it fails? What if then my backlog increases dramatically? So, it is really up to them. If it is simple task automation, we can do it in about four or six weeks. In eight to 10 weeks they'll see the benefit. 

We're using all components of UiPath: attended, unattended robotics, and Orchestrator Studio. We have a very wide customer base and our clients use all of them.

Cloud adoption is increasing. Deployment models are a little bit more a logistic question than anything else because companies who want on-site are a little bit more conscious of security, but they take a normal amount of time, just to figure out the infrastructure. If we moved clients to the cloud, we can make it easier to implement. With email on the cloud, they have a huge set of processes. The larger the company, the larger the processing. With the cloud, it becomes faster. 

I've got a deep partnership with UiPath. I would absolutely rate them high. I'd give them a ten out of ten.