UiPath Reviews

I'm working on a supply chain management project, where some of the distributors are eligible for some of their stock to be returned. The beginning of this stock rotation, and the interactions, are through email. It was previously done by representatives, but we are now automating that process so that we interact with the distributors using email. Responses are sent based on the validations that the bot performs. It's an end-to-end process, all automated using the UiPath.

The project I'm working on creates a lot of availability for employees to concentrate on other activities. Human interaction is reduced. Instead of all the management representatives interacting with front-end people, UiPath is interacting through the API. It has increased the time available to our associates who were working on that particular process. If 10 people were working on a particular process, that number has been reduced to three or four, and the other people have been able to concentrate on something else. The stock rotation process itself would usually take a month in a particular region, but that has been reduced to less than 15 days.

We have also automated a few processes that have human and bot interaction, using UiPath Action Center. When there is human interaction in a particular process, it takes a lot of time. But when we integrated a process with the bot through Action Center, the time needed for the human interaction was reduced. It gives time back to the person who would be doing repetitive work. For example, if a value is different from what the bot is expecting, an Action Center task will be triggered and the human will submit the input that is needed. The rest of the process will then be taken care of by the bot. So the time spent on a particular validation is reduced.

Also, if you compare the situation from a couple of years back, when I started using UiPath, and the present, there has been a lot of change in the way UiPath comes up with new products when it comes to document validation, such as Document Understanding. That does speed up the digital transformation process, and I haven't seen any requirements for additional infrastructure as a condition for benefiting from that transformation process.

UiPath has also helped to reduce human error, and that reduces the time that a particular process takes to run.

For beginners, UiPath is a very low-code or no-code experience. They can get started with StudioX. The best place to learn the solution is the UiPath Academy. If they come across any hurdles, the forum is an excellent place to post them and get answers. As a community, UiPath is very encouraging for newcomers. People with no coding experience can automate processes.

Initially, because I was working with Automation Anywhere, the switch was a little bit overwhelming. There are comparatively more Activities in UiPath. The scope is very large; you can automate large processes. But eventually, I have come to feel that building automation is easier in UiPath than with Automation Anywhere.

Also, in my experience using UiPath automation, we have not had to make any changes to infrastructure. It has really been a seamless interaction.

We don't use the UiPath Apps feature yet. I did a PoC on it and it looks like a wonderful product. But when we are using Action Center with Apps, the Action Center stage is built in Orchestrator, but the same field is not built in the Apps. We have to work around that particular process, to make Action Center and Apps work together. Action Center waits for a particular input when a particular task is triggered. This stage is not built in Apps. UiPath Apps should be stepped up in terms of its functionality and integration with other UiPath products.

I have been using UiPath for almost three years.

I did come across an issue very recently where, when I had to update the version of the Activity package I used for a particular deployment, the Data Table Activity, it did not list the way it had been listed. I raised a question in the forum, but there was no clear answer. Apart from that, I haven't seen any other instability with UiPath.

UiPath is scalable. We have deployed bots across many regions. There was no limit in that respect. I haven't seen any issue; the scalability is good.

I work in the automation center of excellence in our company. There are 50 to 60 teammates there, working on UiPath and Automation Anywhere. In UiPath, they work on the automation of SAP. In addition to my work on supply chain automation, there are a couple of projects dealing with our customers' needs. Our organization builds products that are generic and we then customize them to meet those customer needs. There are also some projects where Excel activity is the focus. And we recently started using Document Understanding in a PoC. We generally have two or three developers working on deployment, along with one DevOps person. Not many people are required for deployment.

I haven't contacted UiPath tech support, other than posting that Data Table Activity question in the forum.

I was working with Automation Anywhere for a year or so, but because of the requirements of our company, I had to switch to UiPath. The switch happened because a customer we work for deploys UiPath.

I have been able to learn things like interaction with multiple enterprise systems, including OBI, using API calls. Unlike other automation applications I have used, implementing a process using UiPath is very easy.

In terms of end-to-end automation, there are products that are useful for identifying processes for automation. But for the process I'm working on right now, we did not use UiPath to implement end-to-end automation. Identifying the process for automation was done separately. Only building the bot was done in the UiPath. The process is not end-to-end, except for the bot development. When I think of "end-to-end," it includes identification of the process for automation. From there, you need to build up the process, the documentation, et cetera. End-to-end is important, as it means you aren't switching between multiple tools.

We use it to automate searches in public databases. We have lawyers who need to search for various companies. For example, we are searching insolvency files for a list of business partners, so we use the robot to perform the search and notify clients about its results. Thus, it helps us with our work in searching public registries.

We have the Studio license and attended robots.

It enables us to provide new services, e.g., our use case is something that we could not have delivered manually. Now that we use the robot, it is something that we can offer to clients. Therefore, it has helped us expand our scope of services and offer to clients more competitive fees. We are now trying to get more clients.

If we were to do this manually, it would take us one day for 200 companies. Now, it takes about half an hour. So, it has reduced our time to process information. Before, we didn't offer these services on a mass scale. We just often did it for a couple of companies. Now, we can offer it on a larger scale.

One of the departments in our organization does use UiPath for compliance purposes: To send reminders to our clients. We have to ensure that clients are compliant when they submit financial statements. We use the robot to send them reminders to update the steps of compliance, i.e., if it's done. This is not my team, but another team who uses it for compliance purposes. It has increased their level of compliance because it's timely and there are no errors in the reminders.

We mostly value the fact that it easily interacts with existing systems. We don't have to go to a complex interface to access public information to send the emails, etc. This is the good part.

Its ease of management is okay. Our attended robots have some Excel files that we use to manage and configure the robots. It is quite straightforward.

It has helped relieve the legal staff of the burdensome task of searching on the public registry. For them, this has been a big improvement. It saves time and also the risk of human error has been reduced, because now the robot does the work. So, you don't get bored when you check 2,000 companies on the portal. The staff is overall more satisfied because they can do more value-added tasks than performing this search.

The pricing for Orchestrator and unattended robots could use improvement. If we plan to roll out and implement more robots, then perhaps lower costs on Orchestrator and unattended robots would make adoption even easier. 

For roughly a year and a half.

So far, the stability has been good. We haven't had any issues.

If you have an attended robot, then it is scalable to a certain extent, but this is because of the price tag. If you think through your use cases, then you can use the same license for multiple purposes. If we think of scalability in the sense of changing the process, then this is something that can be done, but it requires extra development time. So, it's rather scalable.

We have two lawyers using this robot. Their role is to monitor the robot and make sure that the robot works fine. For example, if there are any complaints from the clients, then they can respond.

We, in legal, are among the first to use this robot to my knowledge. Other than a couple of robots that I've mentioned in this review, I'm not aware of other robots.

The technical support is very good. They were very responsive. We had a question about the license and they replied very quickly.

We did not previously use another solution. We decided to implement an RPA solution because we wanted to streamline our processes. We also wanted to be able to offer and develop new services for our clients. For these particular use cases, using other technology solutions would have been more expensive and complicated to set up.

The initial setup was a bit complex. We are a very big company with a lot of IT centers. I think the complexity was on our side. The initial part of setting up the virtual machine and installing the licenses took roughly two months. After that, the development time was very short: one week.

Our experience, as administrators of the platform, is quite good. Once the robot is set up, it is very easy to see the results, reports, and if there are any errors. It is quite easy to use.

The robot that searches for insolvency cases was built in one week. After that, we have been testing it and making adjustments, but the construction and development time were very short.

It speeds up digital transformation because it's easy to implement and have it live. Therefore, it is something that we can use very easily to streamline our operations. 

I handled the project and managed the discussion with our IT. We had several infrastructure teams who set up the virtual machines and helped us install the licensing. We had a third-party developer who developed the robot. We also had an internal team who tested the implementation. I oversaw everything.

We were happy with the third-party developer.

Now, there are several providers/developers who can build UiPath robots quite easily and at affordable prices. So, in our case, it was quite a straightforward process of building the robot.

Our processing time was reduced to half an hour. Something that would have taken up the whole day (eight hours) was reduced to half an hour. This has freed up our legal staff’s time to focus on more important and strategic tasks.

What we have managed to do is to offer a completely new service. It is something that we did not offer on a regular basis or big scale. Using RPA, we can offer it to a larger scale with the reduced costs.

The pricing is okay, but I recommend to build a business case before going live. Ensure that you really use the license and building the robot makes sense. Try to think of multiple use cases, because one license can be used for several robots.

There are additional costs for using third-parties. We also have internal costs with the infrastructure and for the virtual machines where the robot operates.

The costs are quite affordable. It is a solution that makes sense from a business perspective.

We didn't do a very formal business review process.

I think the platform is very good.

Have a good consultant advise you on the processes of automations: How to build the use case and business case. You will need a bit of knowledge around RPA and business processes to be able to have a successful implementation. 

Have a stronger technical partner tool to help with developing the robot, making adjustments, testing, etc. Testing is very important. It is important that you allocate resources for testing.

Robots can do things in a different manner than we can and more efficiently. We have to be creative and think of processes, even if only part of them are repetitive, that we can automate and a human can work with the robot. Then, the overall the process is improved and our experience as humans is a lot better.

I would this solution a 10 out of 10 because they are very good at what they do. It's very important that you understand what the solution can do and its limitations. However, for this type of product, I think they are the best.

We currently use an on-premise Orchestrator instance along with VDIs for Studio development, testing, and production Robots. We use UiPath in a few different ways: for repetitive high volume and or high complexity time-intensive tasks, for tasks with high error rates and or low error tolerance, and as a component in larger digital workstreams requiring the interaction of multiple systems and workers.

We are able to roll out customized sales reports for every appointment for all 400 of our sales agents, which is something that was not even feasible before. It could not possibly be done by humans alone without hiring an army.

We have been patching together a number of different solutions to try and create a more holistic automation solution. The newly announced features such as Long Processes, AI Fabric, and improved attended dashboard will go a long way in solving those needs.

On a scale from one to five where one is not stable and five is very stable, I would rate the stability of UiPath platform as a three. We had a lot of trouble initially, most of which was our own fault. Migrating all development, testing, and production, to identical virtual machines to ensure parity helped tremendously with stability and reliability. We still have to be very careful with selectors though and have learned to not trust the default capture particularly with Java-based applications.

I'd say the customer support is nothing short of excellent. We've had access to both technical and business experts as needed, and have regular conversations regarding challenges, successes, and the path to full-enterprise deployment.

On a scale from one to five where one is the least beneficial and five is the most beneficial, I would rate the UiPath Academy RPA training for our team as a four. It's no substitute for programming experience and computer science knowledge, but one of our Accounting Analysts and a Process Engineer each completed the first course and within a couple of weeks were producing basic automations. It's a fantastic entry point both for non-technical and technical users to learn about RPA and get up and building fast.

Previously I've used Automation Anywhere and switched when changing companies.

Our infrastructure team handled implementation with considerable help from UiPath. On a scale from one to five where one is very bad and five is excellent, I would rate our experience with UiPath as a five. The service was excellent.

It took us about four months to see a return on our investment. In the last six months, we have saved about a hundred thousand dollars and we have freed up about five FTE (Full-Time Employees) of capacity.

Plan to scale from the start! We initially deployed with a single-node on-premise configuration to test everything out and validate the business case. Six-months later and we now have to stand-up a new environment that is critical-process-capable (multi-site/cloud, load balancing, log monitoring, failover, etc) and has the capacity to handle the number of robots and users needed as we roll out enterprise-wide. It would have been more cost-effective and much easier on the infrastructure team to plan it all out ahead of time.

We evaluated BluePrisim, Automation Anywhere, and UiPath. Our Process Engineers and citizen developers really liked the flowchart-esque UI and the business leaders were impressed by UiPath's ability to build a PoC for one of our worst processes in just two days.

On a scale from one to five where one is very difficult and five is very easy, I would rate the ease of use as a three. The flow is ideal for process-minded people and analysts, so they are able to navigate the UI and start building quickly. Our more advanced developers occasionally opine about the lack of an editor like interface and the need to click through a lot of UI elements to access more technical elements. Overall though, we feel it strikes a good middle ground, particularly when compared to other major competitors.

We use only unattended robots with Studio and Orchestrator. Our primary use for the bots is in finance, so we only do finance use cases like AP (Accounts Payable) invoice retrieval.

The solution has improved the way our organization functions because no one has to sit for hours just spending time retrieving documents. The staff just picks up the documents they need in the morning, start their analysis right away.

What I find the most valuable about UiPath is flexibility in adding code. That ability is the most important feature for me and what I do.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see better scheduling options. Because of the schedule limitations, you can only schedule one process at a time. There are situations where I might want to build five processes that need to work together. As I can only schedule one at a time, it isn't currently possible.

On a scale of one to five where one is unstable and five is very stable, I would rate the stability of the UiPath platform as a five. There are not many issues at all. On other platforms that we use, we always seem to encounter small things that cause problems. For example, with other solutions, we have had problems processing things like resolution and there is always an issue. But with UiPath, I can control almost everything from the robot and get it working.

There are ten people in our organization involved in our automation program and I think it can be scaled at any time.

While we don't use technical support directly, our team has used UiPath Academy RPA training to become more familiar with the product. On a scale from one to five where one is the least beneficial and five is the best, I would rate the Academy experience as a five. We've also used the forum. In all, between the implementation help, the Academy and the resources, I would rate the support as a nine-out-of-ten.

From the time we purchased the UiPath license until we had our first robot in production took only about one month, and that was without previous experience with the product. The initial set up of the product was straightforward, so it was all pretty efficient.

We did not need to use an integrator, reseller, or consultant. We did the entire implementation all in house. The only exception is that we did get some help from UiPath by working with them directly. 

We have experienced some return on investment and performance benefits, and it only took about one month to see it. There is one monthly process we use and in just one run — the first time we ran it — something that took two people two days was done in two hours. So, what took 16 hours to do analysis on before has been cut down to two hours. It is hard to say how much money that saved as we just changed the allocation of resources. The solution also helped to eliminate human errors which are even harder to account for.

We chose to try UiPath because we wanted to test the SQL capabilities that it has. I don't know that I would say we evaluated other options before choosing it as a solution. We currently work with both Blue Prism and UiPath at the same time. 

On a scale from one to five where one is very difficult and five is easy, I would rate the ease of use of the platform as a seven. I think that especially business users who don't have more of a technical background can get lost in all the different features that are available.

For this solution, we could totally deploy with attended robots, but our business just isn't ready for that yet. I think, with the adoption of Studio X that we might be in that position, but not right now.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a seven overall. The scheduling feature just isn't there yet to allow more flexibility in programming and use, but the development is much faster and the flexibility better than much of the competition. The introduction of open-source changes the game for RPA solutions.

The advice I would give to a colleague at another company who is researching this solution or a similar one would be to clearly evaluate the use case. Don't just breeze through and assume you need automation. Take a good look at what you actually need to do, make sure the solution fits, and make sure the targeted processes are processes that should be automated.

We are using attended and unattended bots. The attended ones are very low profile. We are also using Orchestrator.

Our primary use case for this solution is to automate underwriting processes.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment, yet.

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. I think that we still struggle sometimes with what kind of a bot we need to use for what kind of work. It may be a lack of understanding on our side. We need to have more clarity on this.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. This is what I have heard from my team members. I did enroll in the training but I didn't make much progress. That said, I have heard good things about it.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately a six-month transition.

In terms of eliminating human errors, I would say that this solution has done so to a certain extent. The stuff that we are automating was quite simple to begin with. As such, there was not a lot of room for error because we have multiple verification steps. I cannot estimate a percentage for the reduction of human error.

I would say that we have a time-savings of approximately fifty percent.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the unattended robots because I can schedule my jobs and it can run on its own. I don't need to pay much attention, except in the case of an exception. That is the only time that I need to deal with it.

We sometimes struggle trying to figure out what kind of a bot we need to use for what kind of work, and it would be nice to have more clarity on this.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It is quite stable.

We have a team of ten developers who work with this solution.

We did not use another RPA solution prior to this one.

We got involved in automation because it makes us more efficient and we save money. These are a few of the important things that we are always looking for.

The implementation of this solution was done in-house.

We have seen ROI because a lot of the work is now automated, so the people who used to do these tasks, the monotonous work, are now doing better things. I would say that we saw ROI in five to six months.

The licensing costs for the unattended bots are a little too expensive. If it were lower then I think we could use it more effectively.

We are excited about the upcoming features with artificial intelligence and document understand capabilities. I think that those are features that would come in quite handy for us.

My advice for anybody considering this solution is to take a look from the grand scale to see which use cases are the prominent ones. Do not look at all of the tiny details because sometimes we can make a use case very complex. The end result is less valuable. Look for the high-level stuff that can be quickly automated, then come down to the final stuff later.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are a pharmaceutical company, producing insulin, primarily for diabetes. We work with other diseases, as well, but our focus is primarily diabetes.

We have automated many processes, at least 20 RPAs across the company.

Automation can be done in many ways, but UiPath is a more simple approach. There, any layman can learn how to program in UiPath, which is its main benefit.

We need them to improve the scalability, as we are still building up.

We have had stability challenges. However, I don't know whether it is product-related programming-related, or if it is our core systems which are failing. So, we have instabilities, and whether or not it is UiPath, that I don't know.

We still need the power of the scalability. We have a few robots, but we are a big company with 45,000 employees. 20 robots will not change the world.

The product is not big enough yet to eliminate human errors.

The initial setup is complex. Technically, we are still implementing the product, as we are doing it in phases.

There's a difference when you start up, you just need to make something work to prove the concept. Proving the concept, that is easy. You hire in some consultants, build the robot, and it works. Building the organizational scalability is more complex: How to combine process knowledge, programming knowledge, and maintenance knowledge, since these are three different types of skills which are needed. It's not straightforward to do in a global company.

If you are a local company with one site, it's one type of challenge. If you have multiple sites across the globe (more than 200 sites), it's another type of challenge. Thus, we haven't nailed it yet. Right now, at this intermediate stage, there are more stages ahead of us.

We would like to see improvement on the ROI, as we need to free up resources. Too many man-hours are being spent on trivial tasks which could be automated.

RPA appears to be working, as a technology, but it is still too immature to say that it is beneficial as many people portray it to be. It is still in the making, but it is not there yet. Right now, we don't have a solid business case on RPA, as a technology. Maybe, in the future, but it has given us a lot of challenges so far.

The primary use case is to have a platform which allows us to scale rapidly without adding a lot of human labor. We are looking to go global without being dependent on recruiting heavily on back office functions.

We combine this RPA solution with predictive analytics. We are in the hairdressing industry, so we predict the amount of haircuts that we get every month in advance. Based on that prediction, we set up our work shifts based on it. We do that predictably, then we use UiPath RPA to fill in the work schedules for each employee in advance and measure it, since it is really important for us to get an accurate number of shifts based on predictive analytics.

It is fairly easy to use. We are using it with a lot of integrations with separate tools to get the flow of data going.

Valuable features include rapid development and the scale of solution. The most valuable feature would be accuracy: The ability to perform the same job accurately and consistently.

We use UiPath only in virtual environments. If it came out of the box like a software as a service, it would be a whole lot better, especially in our case. All our internal systems are cloud-based systems, so we have no dependencies or legacies in terms of installed software in any way. We could be completely in the cloud all the way through.

I would like to see direct integration with the Google BigQuery platform. 

I would also like an Orchestrator self-service desk.

The stability is as good as the developer makes it.

The scalability looks pretty solid. We haven't been working with it too long, or long enough to see it really scale yet. 

Orchestrator should have better scalability with a better payment model in terms of number of processes that you want to use. Instead, you have one product which covers this size with this fixed price. You're getting a box of options, but you can't really scale it.

We have not really used the support. We did spend a bit of time on the community forum, but that's about it. The community forum is pretty good. This is one thing which differentiates UiPath from the pack: It has a community and access to information.

We did not use a previous solution. We went straight to UiPath right from the get go. 

I have worked with automation before. We saw a rapid gain in terms of automation where we couldn't automate in any other way. 

The initial setup was a bit complex. It could be better, especially with Orchestrator. 

Orchestrator should be a separate solution, straight out. Just sign up and have a heavy solution for it. Instead, we spent a lot of paid consulting hours setting it up on our Google Cloud platform and virtual server in the cloud. That was just wasting money for our organization. It should be its own software as a service. 

We used PwC for the deployment, who was very good.

We've been in production for about two months, and we have seen tremendous ROI. The accuracy of the job was far more valuable than the man-hours spent.

It has helped to eliminate human error by a huge amount.

While it has saved us time, we're a small staff business, so there's not a whole lot of time to save.

Licensing costs are high, but still well within a positive return on investment.

We like the hybrid model, but it would be very costly for us to have one Attended Robot for each person in the organization. Although, it would be nice to have, we don't do many mundane, repetitive tasks in entire our organization. We actually have UiPath to do all the work that we don't do, which means we can think about it differently from the start. If we can consolidate all those tasks on Unattended Robots from the start, then we save on licensing money, which we try to keep as tight as possible.

The main cost driver is developing and maintaining the software. Ensure that you don't spend unnecessary time implementing something you don't know. Get someone who knows it to get it up and running. Let that be the basis of your tech choice. I like UiPath roadmap, and the roadmap of the product should also be very important.

Getting the ROI, which we expected within one month, would be impossible to do with another tool.

We did not look at other solutions. I am managing the system, not developing it. I am a self-service manager for the operations, and I only knew UiPath. Therefore, the cost of implementing something that I didn't know would be higher than the cost of implementing something I did know. Plus, it works for work we need.

The automation technology at our organization is pretty good. We use a set of combination batch/cron jobs for a Google Cloud platform together with some AI automation tools, like Dialogflow, in combination with the RPA tools, like UiPath.

It is a very good product and very much stable. I love working with it. Though, it still has some limitations when it comes to integrations and development. Sometimes, you find yourself in a situation where have to add a bunch of code to make it work faster, or you will be stuck with it dragging and dropping. While this works in most cases, for the 20 percent where you want to add code, it does becomes annoying.

We use it in our robotics lab to deliver front and back office solutions for the clients. We're a BPO CRM organization, so there is a huge amount of opportunity, not just internally as an organization, but for our clients as well. We use UiPath as a delivery method to find reductions in costs and the like, year on year.

I would rate the performance benefits a very strong eight out of ten. You have to make sure that you pick the right processes that you're looking to automate.

For me, the biggest feature is that my developers love it. And if my developers are happy, then I'm happy. We're totally agnostic and we use multiple providers. But the developers definitely absolutely adore the product.

The speed that in which it can be deployed is something I really like as well because that cuts down on delivery times. I also like the ease of use.

I like the fact that we can program our own .NET to plug into it and there are APIs for multiple different solutions, and the convenience of artificial intelligence and machine-learning and those types of capabilities as well.

The new release broke everything, so I'd like to see that not happen next time. All of our automations broke. It happened to one of our centers of excellence. They just upgraded, pressed next, next, next, and probably didn't really go for the due diligence that we put in place, which is to do a controlled release.

I'd also like to see more machine-learning functionality. I'm really excited to see what's actually on the agenda. There's some really strong stuff about machine-learning being adopted. Unstructured data, robotics being able to read unstructured data, is really one of the strong cases for us. That's likely where we'll be going.

It's phenomenal. The stability is really good but some of the releases have been a little shaky.

To scale it is very easy. But you need to know how to scale robotics, it's not just deploying one on a PC somewhere. We do it on VMs in a data center which is fully monitored by a help desk. We know how to scale bots. It is very easy to scale, if you know what you're doing.

Support has been very good. One thing that the developers are always talking about is the social networking side of it, whereby the blogs and things like that are ongoing. They really like that, that we can actually find a lot of problems already solved within the community and take solutions from there. And the ticketing system is very quick as well.

We've been involved in RPA since early 2014. In 2014 we were using one provider and then we moved into another provider as well. But then we started to look at UiPath and the way it was performing in our proofs of concept. We felt that with those three providers, and our bespoke solutions as well, we were able to pretty much handle any project that came at us, depending on the infrastructure type, and the applications that are interacted with.

When selecting an RPA vendor, our criteria include ease of use, adoption, skillsets in the country, and the relationship with the vendor. I won't name them, but I have challenges with certain providers out there and the way they actually manage relationships. If I were to look again, relationship would be a very strong indicator. And that was one of the things that attracted us to UiPath in the first place, that relationship, that ease. They are very involved in listening to us.

Two things that attracted me to UiPath when we were doing the evaluation were: First, we'd done a proof of concept and we could not understand - I have some very smart architects and they could not understand - how fast UiPath was performing the tasks. The other factor was the interaction with the client side, the relationship side, with UiPath. Considering some of the challenges I've had with other providers, I think this is a refreshing approach. I'm just hoping that UiPath doesn't outgrow itself and leave that phenomenal customer service behind.

We see ROI all the time. We also see performance benefits all the time. We haven't delivered a project where we haven't seen a return on investment using UiPath. The return on investment is normally six to nine months, maybe a little bit less. But we've never not actually been able to achieve a return on investment.

Sometimes it's actually about setting the expectations as well, regarding what you're trying to do. Sometimes it's not about headcount reduction, it's about quality. It can be about looking at what the customer is actually really wanting, and then being able to deliver on what the customer requires for it be a success.

There are some outliers out there, but there is normally a very strong return on investment.

Look at what it is you're trying to achieve. Do due diligence on the assistance that you're going to interact with, the infrastructure that you're going to be managing, and then actually go out and have a look at a few providers. One of the really strong things about UiPath is that they provide evaluation licenses. There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't try it before you actually start doing it in anger.

We have solution architects, senior developers, developers, business analysts, consultants, help desk, help desk supervisors, infrastructure, and a data center involved. For maintaining and developing UiPath there are 15 people who report directly to me, but the entire support structure is probably closer to 35 people, maybe a little bit more.

In terms of Academy training, we've done the basic and we've done the advanced training as well. The basic training is phenomenal. I think it's groundbreaking. The online university, in my opinion, is revolutionary in this area, when you look at some of the offerings that other providers have.

The advanced training was a little bit of a let down for us. We just didn't get out of it what we were expecting to get out of it. It just didn't achieve what we thought it would, especially for the price. Our expectations were that we would actually be able to sit all our developers in a room and do a process that we had already done, re-engineer it, and make it better. And that never materialized. It was just a little bit of a letdown. But the university piece is absolutely phenomenal.

Overall, UiPath is a very strong nine out of ten. I'm one of these people who doesn't ever leave a five-star review, there's always room to improve. Still, the nine is a very strong nine. This has become our weapon of choice. That speaks volumes.