What needs improvement with UiPath?

One thing which I can suggest is to integrate the CI/CD pipeline within UiPath Platform Orchestration. That will be the next step to get into a full Agentic service within UiPath Platform. I am currently using some external CI/CD pipelines, like Azure or others, and integrating them inside UiPath Platform would be an easy-to-go solution for anyone. The sales approach is a bit slow. It almost took a month to complete the entire sales process and just get the final quote from UiPath Platform US sales team. There was also some discomfort in selecting the packages. The AI unit bundle flexibility in pricing is missing. I wanted to buy a smaller portion of AI units but needed to purchase a large bundle. Recently, I faced an outage issue with Cloudflare, resulting in being unable to connect UiPath Platform with UiPath Platform Orchestration, and some of the UiPath Platform Orchestration services were down. This was the first time I faced a stability issue. I expected faster support during a production deployment issue. I got email communication, but a call would have been faster, resolving the issue more quickly.

I think UiPath Academy is a little confusing. Back in 2019 or 2022, it was good. You could clearly understand which exact course you wanted to pick and what you wanted to go through. Currently, there are bundles of courses. When I recently referred UiPath Academy to my neighbor who was interested in learning automation, I was literally confused about which Academy course I needed to refer. Previously, there was the developer certification, the standard certification, and the REFramework certification, which is advanced. The foundation and standard certification have now been divided into six or seven parts. It is very difficult to go through all those six and seven modules and send them to someone. Previously, all of these modules, which were six, seven, or maybe eight modules, were in just one course called the foundation UiPath course. It was much better when you could directly refer this course to someone instead of sending all those links or URLs.The only other thing is the budget constraints they might be having, such as going with lesser-cost tools instead of higher-cost tools.

I think UiPath Platform could improve in the catalog regarding options and hyperautomation, as I think this is more evaluated, and operations too. I don't want to see additional features in future releases. I don't have current pain points that I would want them to fix.

As a business-based person who handles engineering and IT from the business side, I can say that improvements would be beneficial in the automation of the entire software development life cycle through more agents, similar to the testing automation currently being done. The activities we have implemented are pretty straightforward. The testing time and process were somewhat challenging. While deployment was straightforward and easy, the testing part, particularly testing the functional use case, was difficult. Writing test cases and dealing with failures was challenging. We had apprehensions about whether it would work well with the current setup, even with some latency.

I did not find support helpful.

UiPath Platform can be improved with better navigation and documentation. When I've introduced someone to the new Studio or Orchestrator, they definitely click different things that are named similarly or the same, and that is probably the most confusing part of the process.

I would love to see UiPath Platform improved by having a better mobile application. Currently, while the web portion is available, the mobile app needs significant improvement.

In my opinion, UiPath Platform could be improved by being more consistent in the presentation of what's coming down the pipeline and when it can be delivered, as well as not changing the names of the products so often. It's confusing when they say, 'Oh, that used to be called this, and now it's that since we've combined it with this.' Ideally, we get more clarity, so that when I talk to a business user, they know what I'm talking about.

In terms of improvement, UiPath Platform should be easier to license. I would like the next release of UiPath Platform to include a user interface or dashboard for our operations staff who would be using Maestro processes.

I see room for improvement with UiPath Platform mainly in the hybrid strategy we're employing, as issues arise from the on-premise and cloud processing switch, particularly with document understanding, which can cause bugs. I believe moving completely to the cloud would alleviate these challenges, along with creating a unified development environment that avoids context switching. To achieve a perfect score of ten out of ten for UiPath Platform, I would suggest simplifying the setup process for agentic AI; experiences with Microsoft's platform illustrate that user-friendly interfaces facilitate quick adoption without requiring extensive expertise. Intuitiveness is key, as Microsoft users find it easy to create agents without extensive training, a contrast to the more complex nature of UiPath Platform's current setup.

I just came out of the product meeting, and I can say they are doing a great job as it is. I hope we can leverage a lot of the agentic features. We are taking a more cautious approach on AI. Making things more user-friendly, particularly for end-users, allowing those people to get involved in the process, would be wonderful, as I saw with Maestro. I cannot think of any additional features off the top of my head.

UiPath Platform can be improved by including the ability to build human-in-the-loop interfaces with chat and with web apps in the next release.

UiPath Platform can be improved by working on specific use cases and partnering with us to help bring more belief in the system, and solving the pain points for the industry is critical. Do not lose focus on a specific industry. Additional features that should be included in the next release are probably healthcare-specific connection and partnership with Epic. With the agentic part, we are facing some challenges in terms of governance, in terms of which agentic platform to use, whether we should use UiPath, whether we use our agentic platform that we have chosen. That's going to be the challenge. Governance and clinical use cases typically go through a lot of scrutiny from security and legal. So that's the challenge, however, that's nothing to do with UiPath.

Improving the forms on UiPath Platform so you can easily assess answers could be a big benefit. The different dashboards are not very convenient or handy; you have to do a lot of manipulation with them, and I'd rather have ease of use and them be more user-friendly. It would also be nice to have better insights into the processes, such as whether they are running smoothly and what the outcome is, because we have to leave a lot of breadcrumbs when we build something and would rather not have to do all that.

To improve UiPath Platform, I would really want to see improvements on Action Center in customization on how it's laid out. They have a layout that makes sense in some cases, but I would want to actually create a custom UI for Action Center because sometimes it does not make sense what they're trying to do, and you want to move things around. If we could edit the CSS, that would be great. On all of their tools, especially those meant for attended or human in the loop, any interface that we have that is business facing should be customizable. I would prefer to see UiPath hands off on that and just let the user figure out what is best for the end user instead of it being a prepackaged thing. Sometimes it works and makes total sense, but in other cases, it does not. Business users ask, 'Can we change this? Can we do this? Can we do that?' and the answer is often 'We can't because it's prepackaged.'

The next release of UiPath Platform should include a direct link to the documentation page from the Orchestrator, which would save us the trouble of searching it out. The negative aspect we considered was how quickly we can set things up on different platforms.

The biggest challenge for our company, which is a law firm, is that the data is very sensitive, and we do not want to expose our data on the cloud. Therefore, we have our system set up in an on-prem environment, and while we try to utilize new features, with on-prem, we cannot utilize all the new features such as AI Agent or many functions on the cloud. In an ideal world, instead of using the large language model, I would prefer the small language model so we can have our own model, maybe set up on-prem, which would be easier for us. The additional feature I would want to see included in the next release of UiPath Platform is the self-healing agent. We experience downtime, crashes, or performance issues sometimes. The situation with performance issues is usually caused by not upgrading the system in time, leading us to use an older version, which can result in certain packages not being supported and that affects functionality. The areas I see for improvement include the booming AI Agent capabilities and the need to fix maintenance issues that arise after a project is delivered, as addressing this can truly be a game-changer.

We haven't started using some of the newer, better features in UiPath Platform. A lot of the features I'd want to be able to use, they've already rolled out. We just haven't taken advantage of them yet. The only reason that it wouldn't be a ten out of ten right now is that they don't always identify my needs before I identify them to get their help.

That's a tough question about how UiPath Platform can improve. For me, starting out, it was very helpful that I utilized different other AI platforms to teach me the best way to go about creating a process in the tool, and perhaps it was a lack of my education, however, tools to leverage AI within the platform could continue to educate users as they're building out new processes. I would emphasize functionality to challenge one's thought process, asking whether one is going about it in the most efficient way, recognizing that there are a million different ways to do a process and questioning if I'm doing it the right way and needing tools to help with that. To be considered a ten out of ten, UiPath Platform needs to enhance its capabilities, and I would lean into the integration of AI to coach and mentor you through the process. While I have my connections throughout the company, often it's just myself. Having an AI friend who is a UiPath Platform professional that knows what's best would make it easier than having to gather information from various places.

To improve UiPath Platform, I definitely suggest including more integration services; the more customers they can connect with, the better, as there are a couple of major names missing, such as SAP connections and NetSuite.

To make it a ten out of ten, it would help if they understand that we don't work 24/7, so we're not going to respond immediately when they send an email asking for a response.

Personally, the only problem we have with it is some of the auditing ability and some of the user access and role building. If I had one thing that I would ask for more development in, it would be audit trail. We're a high-trust certified company, so we need to make sure that we have all that information. The ability to enforce and enroll people in different roles within the platform needs improvement.

UiPath Platform could be improved, especially in terms of documentation. For example, we were early adopters of IXP, and the initial documentation lacked enough information for us to understand the whole product and best practices. Although UiPath Platform started releasing new versions of documentation and courses, there remains a need for better engineering basics and courses on LLMs since they are crucial for understanding the product behind the scenes. The final products for both documentation and the Academy are good, but the release timing can be challenging for early adopters who struggle to understand the products at the beginning. UiPath Platform scales really from a technical standpoint, however, from a licensing and pricing perspective, scaling becomes challenging. In our case, we have an ELA, which sets restrictions on how many robots we can scale and how many AI units we can consume, making it a less-than-ideal experience regarding pricing when trying to scale.

It's really hard to answer what areas UiPath Platform could be better as they are so far ahead of the curve. We work with another partner who's more of a think tank that talks to us about our agentic journey, which is a necessity for everyone moving forward. When they learned that we were using UiPath Platform, they commented that we had it right. We're looking forward to using the platform as the basis and possibly integrating third-party applications that have agentic capabilities while using UiPath Platform as the backbone.

UiPath Platform can be improved, as there are many capabilities we can utilize. The upcoming Agentic AI is going to expose many opportunities for us. There are features such as UiPath Apps, which we have not been successful at implementing in our company due to limitations, as we want to give control to the user community to run their own bots, however, at this point we haven't been able to fully implement that. Additional features I would want to see included in the next release of UiPath Platform are the UiPath Apps and, along with Agentic AI, there are many use cases for the attended bots. If improvements can be made to attended bots, that would be beneficial asthere are many use cases in our company that we haven't explored yet.

UiPath Platform can be improved by providing more direct connectivity into source systems. Additional features that should be included in the next release include better or more connectivity. What would make it a full ten out of ten for me is that there is always going to be some room for improvement.

Sometimes, regarding the limitations, heavy-level architectures and structures are needed, such as architectural setup required to boost IT support for long-scale automation. The learning curve, while low-code advanced automation is related to AI and ML, requires substantial technical knowledge. There could be some performance issues, such as automation breaking when UI elements change frequently, so these are limitations which I face, and these are the areas where UiPath Platform can improve. The license pricing is very high, so compared to other competitors such as Automation Anywhere or Power Automate, it could be more competitive if these things were matched with the competitors.

There needs to be more user use cases in their demo, as the current use cases are very basic. They should include moderate use cases with varying difficulty because implementing a project using only simple use cases is insufficient. They have numerous features that cannot be covered completely in their tutorial, so adding instructions and small videos about particular features or assets would enable users to understand how to use these features without requiring additional training from the academy or other portals.

UiPath Platform is one of the top leaders. When developers are asked which tool is convenient for RPA development, they choose UiPath Platform. It provides extensive development options and is very convenient from a developer perspective. In terms of low-code, no-code capabilities, it competes with Power Platform and Automation Anywhere. The main area for improvement is pricing, as people are moving towards Power Platform due to license pricing considerations. Regarding technical support, I would rate it 6 or 6.5. Previously, they provided excellent support, but now the support quality varies based on the client's license tier. Clients with fewer licenses receive support only through email. For critical errors, we may receive an initial email response within two to three hours requesting basic information, but resolution can take one to two days. This is a significant change from their earlier approach.

There are areas within UiPath Platform that could improve. While the interface is user-friendly and features are advanced, further simplification could enhance usability. One improvement could be addressing compatibility issues. Sometimes, when upgrading, users need to downgrade due to version compatibility problems. I believe they should reduce the certification costs or offer better deals, especially around December or January when people may be interested in discounts.

The main area where UiPath Platform can be improved is the cost; everything else is good.

I don't find any features or aspects challenging or wish were different; the platform actually gives me all the support and I can use all features easily. At the moment, I don't wish for anything else regarding needed improvements from UiPath Platform.

There are a few areas in the UiPath Platform that could be improved. The OCR technology needs improvement, particularly for reading invoices, especially scanned invoices.

There is scope for improvement in the UiPath Platform, particularly with the Web Studio feature that has been launched recently. They could enhance the object repository feature, which allows maintaining selectors externally, as there are challenges associated with changes in selectors that require updating the library and the version in the code. The Web Studio works when there are APIs involved, but it could be made more user-friendly and developer-friendly. It currently works only in cases where it is not dependent on a machine.

We haven't worked much with AI features, but I am looking for some features there. Overall, it provides us with what we need the most. They can perhaps make the customizations and configurations for reuse easier for the developers, as it would help to expedite things.

UiPath Platform is doing a good job with enhancements; they are releasing new features almost every six months. However, I would recommend that they improve their ability to be a low-code, no-code platform, as this would be a great feature for their platform.

The areas where the UiPath Platform could be improved are in how most companies are adopting agent-tech AI. We will have to monitor how they are integrating it with agent-tech AI. Based on the literature, the UiPath Platform is taking concrete action, as they released their agent-tech framework last week. It is very difficult, so we will need to assess that and see how the product evolves into the agent-tech feature API integration.

There is one major feature I feel is missing from UiPath. When someone starts an automation, there should be some notification window on the screen to provide information about the flow's status and progress. Currently, users can see if the flow is running and some basic information, but there's no core notification window that fully informs users. Incorporating such a feature would greatly enhance user experience.

I do not like the Orchestrator setup and the licensing model. Its price is higher than others, and the licensing model is quite confusing. UiPath should develop models for situations when other applications disrupt automation and provide a mechanism to override that. Efficiency issues are present and should be addressed.

UiPath should be less sensitive to changes in the existing UI of the system we are trying to manipulate. If it was more intelligent in adapting to changes in the user interface and the tools we are trying to manipulate, it would be beneficial. If the UI changes or a label is changed, sometimes the whole flow breaks. Identifying where the flow breaks requires going into edit mode and making modifications. It might be quite extensive work with the new, updated UI.

We're looking to add AI, specifically generative AI, but it's a matter of our organization implementing it. With autopilot features like Microsoft's Copilot or ChatGPT, users can start chatting immediately. However, with UiPath, one needs the UiPath Assistant installed on every machine, which is unrealistic as many people use the same machine in the hospital.

There is a need for more videos and examples on upcoming enhancements and changes. If they can improve the OCR engine and provide more detailed documentation and multiple examples, it would be helpful for adapting to new updates.

UiPath should prioritize improving its updates and user-friendliness, particularly for new team members. Streamlining updates and simplifying the interface would enhance the onboarding experience and overall productivity.

UiPath's Unassisted Task Mining has room for improvement.

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

I would like improvements in UiPath Studio speed. The development environment is sometimes slow, depending on the workflows, especially with legacy workflows.

UiPath needs work on the governance side. For example, they released Studio Web this year and have started work on its governance, but it initially lacked control from an administration standpoint. You could not lock down third-party libraries or other applications and integrations it had built in. For example, people could use a Google account, but we might have concerns about that from a security standpoint. Cybersecurity is taking a more significant place in IT, and we're mindful of that. Having explicit governance over what our users can do inside those technologies is essential. We hope to see that more over the next few years. We've given a lot of that feedback as customers to UiPath, and they've been working hard to get that into the pipeline and implement those changes.

The fast growth of UiPath can be difficult to keep up with, so more informative sessions or webinars showcasing potential returns on investment for specific industries would be beneficial.

The product documentation needs improvement as it tends to be self-contradictory and sometimes hard to access since we are on an older version. There is also a need for more consistency in product support and customer service.

There is a need for better autopilot features to enhance the functionality of UiPath.

Customer education is crucial. Currently, there's a time lag in training, which eventually impacts the customers. All stakeholders should receive updates simultaneously.

Scaling efficiently and supporting people with technical information has been challenging.

Since we are still in the early stages of using UiPath, identifying areas for improvement is challenging. We anticipate that some aspects may emerge as time progresses.

While UiPath is exceeding my expectations, there is room for improvement, particularly in the studio's performance. Sometimes, it takes a while to open and launch workflows, and this speed issue could be addressed. Additionally, the support could be improved, especially regarding the availability and expertise of support engineers.

Overall, UiPath is relatively straightforward, but there are opportunities to simplify activities. Sometimes, I've hit roadblocks while developing RPA jobs and found it difficult to find the answer. I can usually resolve a problem through a support ticket or an online search.

Setting up the infrastructure with different virtual desktops and making the connections stable in our environment present challenges. More direction on cleaning up these issues would be useful.

UiPath could offer better support for operations. It has all these cool features, but when you still need to build and run these bots. You need to have more features that make it easier to run bots, and they require fewer people to maintain.

The messages and alerts that Orchestrator generates are a little overwhelming. I'd like them to be filtered down to the most actionable things I need to look at. For many things, we set up an automation that will send an email summarizing things to the stakeholders for the automation. With any of these types of things, you're generating notices, emails, and things, so you want to focus on some things that need your attention.

My biggest problem is that UiPath is growing so fast and adding integration with so many different products that it's hard to keep up. The COEs at various companies and our developers aren't able to keep pace with what's happening. It's a good problem to have. I'm not complaining, but there are so many features and little time for developers to learn and implement them. If you need something new like a CICD pipeline or somebody for a test suite or to work with Document Understanding, you can't use our existing staff because they don't have the skills. Now, I need to go out and hire more people. I need to reduce the company's size to save money but also spend more to hire.

There's a push for cloud-based operations, but I prefer to develop things on the desktop. I'd appreciate the ability to develop things on the desktop and roll them out concurrently on the cloud.

UiPath's pricing could be improved. The margins for us as a bottom-level tier partner are not great, which can be a hindrance, particularly when we present it to the customer. Other than that, I don't have any areas of improvement at the moment due to our limited experience. Maybe after six months to a year, we might have more feedback.

There are small issues, such as the Action Center not auto-refreshing. The user has to keep clicking "refresh." It's minor, but if you're waiting for something in your queue, you don't want to sit there and keep clicking. Logging could be improved, and there are a few connectors where I would like to see enhancements, but nothing major.

The licensing policies and concepts change almost yearly, leading to difficult negotiations. All components are licensed differently, and it would be more straightforward to adopt new features if they were included in the same bundle.

Data integration is the biggest opportunity for improvement. We need quick connections to our complex in-house databases to set up automations more efficiently. It's time-consuming to connect those large databases.

Although improvements have been made, such as auto-healing, there is room for improvement. Changes in the UI can break automations. If you upgrade from Windows 10 to 11, you may need to rewrite some of those UI selectors completely. That is probably the biggest weakness that I can think of.

We struggle to demo our processes. For whatever reason, we can't get the bot to run so that someone can watch it simultaneously. We press the button, and it shows that it's done rather than showing how the bot works.

Being able to escalate quickly is not a strength for UiPath and may be a focus area.

We are looking to add AI, such as generative AI, but it requires our organization to implement it. UiPath's chatbots and autopilot require UiPath Assistant on every machine, which is challenging because many people use the same machine in the hospital. Everyone knows how to use Microsoft Copilot or ChatGPT. Even a non-technical user can go on OpenAI.com and start chatting. But with UiPath, if you want to use their chatbot or autopilot, you need UiPath Assistant.

While not a negative remark toward UiPath itself, our initial partner was limited in helping us achieve our goals. We are now directly working with UiPath support, which has been exceptional.

It would be helpful to be able to double-click and drill down into the data we see in the APIs and get a little more interactivity, especially in the Studio and Studio Web. I want to be able to pull in fields dynamically.

UiPath could be more intuitive in how it formats strings, variables, or databases. This can sometimes be difficult, even for someone with a computer science background. Additionally, some tasks require a team effort as one person can get overwhelmed or discouraged.

It would help if UiPath fixed bugs in the software before they updated.

The UiPath Studio development suite response can be a little sluggish, depending on the workflows you use. I use a lot of legacy workflows, and the application response is slow.

The documentation related to new releases needs improvement. It should provide a clear understanding of what was present in the old release, what's new, and how it affects users.

I would love more integration with Third-Party applications. Expanding the library of pre-built, plug-and-play connectors to include more industry-specific applications.

I found the UiPath Academy courses to be a bit rigid in their curriculum. It was more beneficial for me to learn from the forums and YouTube videos. Their courses were tailored to particular roles, with a course on UiPath in data science being heavily focused on Excel. While it was a well-structured course, it didn't align with my job's limited use of Excel. Overall, their courses are well-built, but I found YouTube a more suitable learning platform for my needs. UiPath Studio provides comprehensive tools and libraries for building automation, but it lacks a built-in feature to generate consolidated reports after automation runs, detailing successes, failures, and operational features. This absence of detailed logging information makes it difficult to troubleshoot issues and identify whether the problem lies within the application or the automation itself. While UiPath's orchestrator website provides some information, it's insufficient for demonstrating automation runs and accomplished features to stakeholders. Although a future release may address this, the lack of robust reporting capabilities remains a significant area for improvement. Additionally, UiPath's diverse suite of licenses can confuse end-users, making it challenging to determine the most suitable option. While the company has improved features, the increased number of licenses creates a knowledge gap between what's available and user understanding. Clearer explanations of each license would simplify decision-making for potential users and streamline adoption.

The Excel operation needs some modifications. Image processing is also crucial. For example, if the image is clear, UiPath can easily read it. If the image needs clarification, UiPath can't read the object easily. To some extent, Excel automation, especially handling macros, needs improvement. UiPath needs a comprehensive feature set for automating Excel and has limited options. In some cases, we must use macro-enabled Excel files. Therefore, Excel automation and OCR require enhancements.

I do not have any complaints about the tools themselves. They work very well. The only problem is the cost. It was more accessible initially, and we could have more resources with the same license. Now, the license is different, and we need a license for each tool that we have, so it is not very accessible to have all of the tools for installation.

I have just generated the default pilot. I believe another option for the tool could be voice interaction. For example, similar to using assistants like Alexa, it would be beneficial to integrate voice commands with the UI to create an Excel spreadsheet and populate a data table.

UiPath's cost can be prohibitive, and the sheer number of licensing options they offer makes it difficult to choose the right one, creating a confusing selection process. Currently, UiPath doesn't provide automatic notifications for known bugs in new releases. This means we're left to discover and report them ourselves. Ideally, I'd like to receive updates on these known issues from UiPath to streamline the automation process. UiPath implementing a feature like Microsoft's CoPilot would significantly enhance our development experience by offering assistance in building automation.

UiPath has matured and offers a wide range of packages. However, some users feel these packages aren't easily adaptable or customizable. Ideally, UiPath could provide more open models for users to modify and tailor to specific needs. Additionally, users would appreciate more activities and features related to Microsoft Office applications, given their wide use. While UiPath acknowledges this need with some activities for OneDrive and SharePoint, there's a gap compared to other platforms. UiPath's licensing costs are a major consideration. While the platform offers valuable features and user-friendly tools, its pricing can be a barrier for some customers seeking more affordable options. This high cost is a key reason users switch to Power Automate, which integrates well with Office applications but lacks UiPath's breadth of automation capabilities. UiPath's extensive features come at a premium price, leading some customers to explore alternatives like Power Automate or open-source solutions. While these alternatives have limitations, UiPath's recent 30 percent license cost increase has prompted even established users to re-evaluate their options.

Automation Hub needs to improve a lot. About two years back, it kept on crashing. It has improved a lot. We use it but not to a great extent. We try to build our own dashboards by using any of the data analytics tools. It should give real-time data, and the integration with the servers is not that great. It can be because of the infrastructure that we have. They can also consider integration with other automation tools because nowadays, a company does not have one automation tool or RPA tool. A company has multiple RPA tools. They can think of integrating the data from other automation tools in one automation hub so that it becomes centralized.

The pricing is high and has room for improvement. I find UiPath's development environment to be challenging. Ideally, I'd prefer a more user-friendly approach like Blue Prism's, which utilizes a building block concept.

Communication mining and process mining can be enhanced in UiPath. UiPath should improve its licensing because its competitors offer a cheaper and more sustainable model for even small-scale industries. Any company that wants to adopt UiPath has to pay straight away and then use it.

We use intelligent automation for things like document processing. There is a validation center where the ML model extracts some values, and we can validate if it's correct. That aspect could be improved a little. The percentage of values extracted without validation could be increased. It's currently an attended process, but they should give you the option of making it unattended.

The community version of UiPath has a limited feature set, which can make it challenging for users to fully explore its capabilities without purchasing the enterprise version. Offering a trial period for all features could provide a more comprehensive evaluation experience for potential users.

It should have better integration with Microsoft applications such as Excel, SharePoint, Outlook, etc. Power Automate is better for communicating with Microsoft Office applications. With UiPath, we have some difficulty communicating with the Microsoft Office applications. This is the only weakness that I have come across.

UiPath is an RPA solution, but I have never explored the AI part of it. I am unsure if it has an AI element or not. Merging RPA with AI and ChatGPT would be beneficial. Adding more AI could help in small tasks that require intelligence or machine learning, leading to the next stage of automation.

Computational text recognition has room for improvement as it is not 100 percent accurate.

One area that could be improved is how we access the UiPath Academy courses. While it's fantastic that each course provides an assignment, it would be more convenient if we could view the solutions directly within the platform rather than downloading them each time and opening them in our individual UiPath Studio applications. Ideally, there would be an interface integrated into the course platform itself where we could access and review the solutions directly within the browser. This would save time and streamline the learning process. In Automation Anywhere, each line of code is displayed in a list view, offering clearer visibility. In contrast, UiPath condenses everything into a boxed view or flowchart, which can become cumbersome when dealing with numerous intricate conditions. Pinpointing specific segments for modification within such a condensed format proves challenging. Therefore, UiPath's UI design could benefit from an overhaul to enhance clarity and ease of navigation, especially for managing complex workflows.

I'd like to see the accuracy improved. Sometimes the development works fine. Other times, it requires some small changes in the development. They could add enhancements in AI technology that could be helpful for everyday developers.

We sometimes use the AI functionality mainly for document scanning but at the time it was poor and had room for improvement. The operation costs have room for improvement.

* RPA AI capabilities - UiPath is leading in this area. * UiPath should focus more on recommendations of process automation based on ERP Applications like Oracle, SAP etc. They should also provide a list of possible RPA cases as per departments, processes and based on various industry domains. * More on RPA Governance features to be provided out of the box. * RPA Capabilities with IVR Channels to address voice commands will be a game changer for Customer call center cases.

These are my best 3 upgrades for the item:

Improved Dashboards from Orchestrator - we need simple to make SQL questions, preferably not using outsider programming, this ought to permit following of cases, memorable patterns, time to measure and so on I know there are some essential dashboards yet they are not incredible. Kibana is fine for logging however I'm more inspired by the Database - is it conceivable to point Kibana at the DB, if so that could be a pleasant arrangement as Kibana is an exceptionally beautiful apparatus .

Orchestrator should come as an installer bundle. The entirety of the setup choices ought to be alternatives inside a GUI installer. Introducing Orchestrator from Powershell is certainly not a decent choice and it looks excessively disengaged from the Studio Package. I don't think Studio and Orchestrator should be joined into a similar item (a la Blue Prism) however the installer for Orchestrator should be simpler.

The originator ought to be upgraded for certain fundamental custom exercises to improve the visual perspective. I figure it ought to be quite simple to a few additional shapes which duplicate the succession and allot exercises. These ought to be more modest and interactive to grow however at an undeniable level ought to take after a work process guide like Visio or Adonis. The Sequence and Assign boxes are too enormous and they make a fundamental cycle look untidy. I realize you are confined by WWF yet I am certain you could several custom exercises to supplant these.

While doing web automation, I am facing a selector issue. In the web portal, we need to capture a screen element. For capturing the screen element, when I run the job the next time, it fails because the limit is not recognized. It is very difficult to make the selector stable. It is not easy.

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

For UiPath Orchestrator and Studio, if I want to watch the performance of my machines at a specific time or time range, there is no option for that. There are options for one day or week, but there is no option to specify a date such as from Nov 1 to Nov 3. This option should be there for queues and monitoring.

If we want to learn something new about UiPath, we sometimes cannot learn it directly from the UiPath Academy. We have to go and search on the web. It takes a few searches to find the solution. We do find it, but it takes time. UiPath should give the solution in one area.

UiPath is expensive, and its cost could be reduced to make it more accessible to small and medium-sized businesses that could benefit from it. The orchestrator and licensing cost should be flexible instead of hard-coded licensing. UiPath is limited to one application at a time and cannot process two applications simultaneously. This functionality could be improved to support dual browsing, making it more efficient.

Assessing an AI center's role in orchestrating various elements of AI capabilities is quite constrained.

There are instances when the introduction of new features or concepts can be a bit overwhelming for users.

In Action Center, saving progress in data validation, specifically for table content, is currently not available. There should be more clarity around the feedback loop along with the auto-update feature when you deploy machine learning packages. They should give some rule-based options so that if the confidence is returned higher than the previous model trained, then it would auto-deploy. If it is less, then it should send you an email rather than auto-deploy. With task assignment, if there was a round-robin feature within the bucket to automatically assign it to a certain group of people, that would be helpful. There should be the ability to add custom fields to validation tasks because there is a lot of potential for it. It would be helpful when somebody needs to identify a scenario. For example, we have a customer who is processing rate sheets for trucking, and sometimes, depending on their customer, they have an all-in rate versus an adding fuel mileage rate. If they are able to specify that, even if it does not say it on the rate sheet, it would allow them to process more documents successfully. We use UiPath's AI Center, but some clarity is missing around when to use AI Center versus when to use the Document Understanding module within Orchestrator. We are trying to figure out the benefit of one versus the other. We have also seen that the out-of-the-box models that we train versus a custom model that we train with the same data end up with the same output result at the end. We are trying to see where these out-of-the-box models are providing value if we are going to take the time to train them.

Simplification and adaptability for smaller businesses would be a welcome enhancement.

The hardest part is popularizing UiPath among our employees.

The support team could be more responsive and helpful.

There's room for enhancement, particularly in the support department and in the area of reporting, to provide a more robust product for gathering insights.

Integrating with tools such as Asana or other service and project management platforms would be a valuable enhancement.

There is room for improvement in browser automation, particularly regarding access and success rates. Success and failure recognition are key areas to focus on.

Improving financial and recording operations through the use of charts would be advantageous.

The concept of process analysis would be helpful. Having a tool that can assess the entire workflow of an automation created by someone would be highly beneficial. This tool could identify areas where enhancements or improvements are feasible, simplifying the process of refining and optimizing automation workflows. In the case of case number categorization, we encountered an issue. While creating the automation, the system was designed to detect and categorize cases into various specified categories.

There are several areas where I see room for improvement in the tool. One of these areas would be a more solutions-oriented pricing structure. This is because the platform requires a multitude of building blocks even for the simplest use cases and when dealing with newer clients, this can be challenging. One area where I'd appreciate additional or new features is in the realm of insights.

Updating the tool across multiple virtual machines can be time-consuming and somewhat cumbersome. It would be more convenient if this process could be automated.

The UiPath Academy Orchestrator training needs to be updated to reflect the recent changes.

Its pricing changed again this year. I do not know why it just went up, but I do not like that. This is something that I would like them to improve for sure. It would be nice to have the possibility to change the values in the middle of the debug. For example, I am debugging a process, and I write at a place. The value of that level is one, but I want to see the results of it if I change it to two. It does not seem possible in UiPath. It is possible in other software, but in UiPath, it is not yet possible.

An area for improvement I saw in UiPath is API integration, particularly with Microsoft. If you compare my experience with Power Automate in terms of integration, it is seamless, and you don't have to create trust with other applications. Integration via Power Automate is easy, more of dragging and dropping and then starting, which is still not the case with UiPath, so that should be improved.

Currently, we have a lot of data extraction models in UiPath. Still, sometimes the data extraction model needs improvement. For example, extracting the data from various kinds of complex documents. Still, compared to the other automation tools, this works way better. The solution needs to offer more integrations.

We have two versions of UiPath: on-premise and cloud. With the on-premise version, we have good control and flexibility. However, the cloud version is less flexible and we often receive errors. We would like UiPath to make some enhancements to the cloud version to provide more flexibility for OCRs, email models, and AI centers. This would allow us to provide better service to our customers.

I would like to see improved support and cost management for advanced certification. The cost is too high for many people to afford.

UiPath's built-in integration with Python scripts could be more robust so that I do not have to depend on another technology and I can do everything on one platform. Each program you write on UiPath contributes to bot consumption and utilization. As you add more bots, your costs will increase for more actions. Python is open-source, so it is totally free. Depending on our automation needs, we go back and forth between these two technologies. Better integration between these two tools will help organizations cover all areas of automation without more cost-effectively.

UiPath can improve its AI and optical character recognition or OCR. Currently, reading digital images or PDF documents by UiPath is a huge challenge. I request UiPath to improve the OCR recognition.

Sometimes, the company's processes are very complex, and it's very hard to implement UiPath. It also makes mistakes. Understanding your systems by yourself and implementing UiPath into your company processes is the hardest part. This could be improved so that the companies can easily implement the solution.

I see UiPath as a practical product that is trying to achieve end-to-end automation or end-to-end processing. They are playing in this space and bringing their AI connectivity or components into their product. However, I think the only downside is that, as we have seen recently, for some of the processes we have automated, we have documentation on the technical elements that we have automated, but people have forgotten the business rules. UiPath has a task capture product or a process mining product but it could be improved by capturing the business process and then how the automation that we have developed feeds into that overall business process, and making that available to the business so that they know what the business processes are. UiPath does not have a delivery product. For example, when we go into Microsoft DevOps, UiPath does not do that. Once we have identified the process and have coded it in UiPath, there is nothing to tell us about how we deliver that process, and who is assigned to a task to build the components. There is no project management or DevOps delivery pipeline model inside UiPath, so we cannot manage the development.

I want UiPath Data Service to be expanded. It must include many more features as an online database. Many online databases like QuickBase and Force.com are 100 times better than UiPath Data Service. Not sure why UiPath is not adding such features to Data Service. The product does not provide features for chatbot development. It is one of the reasons why people do not use UiPath because they have to use a different tool for chatbot development. Competitors like Microsoft have all process automation capabilities in their Power Platform. They have RPA, attended bots, unattended bots, application development, databases, and chatbots. UiPath has not gotten into chatbots for several years. They are doing many things except chatbots. I express the need for chatbots in every insider event I attend. UiPath’s team says it will take it to the product management group. But nothing happens after that. I want a product for chatbot development from UiPath without having to purchase licenses from a third-party company. The documentation needs a lot of work. The documentation is "boring". They just mention a feature and add one line about what it does. I wish the documentation had examples. The document should be associated with a video or sample code. The documentation is too minimal. People give many sample codes and links to their YouTube videos in the forum. The uipath forum is much richer than the documentation.

Saudi has two calendars. UiPath does not support the Hijri date. They should add it in future releases. We also face regular issues while parsing from right to left and left to right. The Arabic language is not related to the platform. We have Arabic scripts which are sometimes difficult to understand. Also, the license is complicated. The add-ons are not well documented. When we offer and pitch to the customer, sometimes we get confused about which one to offer based on the third-party tools. The solution must focus on microservices and web-based platform building. It would be fantastic if they could produce web applications connected automatically to UiPath. OutSystems is a low-code platform for building web-based and mobile applications. If such features are available in UiPath, it will eliminate the need to integrate with different applications. We can directly build applications using UiPath.

UiPath should be able to adapt to other operating systems like Linux or macOS. The tool must reduce the activity required for workflow design. It should be made similar to Visual Studio. It should provide a better way to analyze the recursion functions.

Unfortunately, I used to be a lover of their Slack channel and people don't seem so responsive there anymore. Unfortunately, I've gotten away from using their Slack channel. That would have been a really good way for me to get some help from the community, yet I don't find it helpful anymore. They're working on integrating their version of a chat. They're starting with Studio Xpress or StudioWeb. I don't use StudioWeb and I don't use StudioX, however, I would love to have that type of feature in Studio. I could use it across the board, not just in Studio, but in Assist. Their error messaging could use some improvement. More times than not an error that you receive is accurate or not clear. In terms of missing features, I can't think of any. They are always ten steps ahead.

One functionality we would like to see is OCR.

UiPath helps with digital transformation at the outset, but I focus on the amount of runtime support needed for managing bots. If a bot is going to save four to six onshore resources, at least one offshore resource is needed to support it. That is one area where UiPath, Automation Anywhere, and every automation software has to focus. A lot of bots are highly sensitive. Even the slightest change in screen behavior or a small change in the process and, many times, they are not intelligent enough to run on their own. That means there is a high level of dependence on the support team. Automation software providers need to improve on this. Also, UiPath could bring in a type of low-code or no-code automation so that it can be used by the masses instead of only by technically proficient people to develop solutions. Low-code or no-code automations would be really helpful. In addition, for intelligent automation to become really robust, a lot of features need to be added, and the accuracy of the model has to be improved. Right now, if I am going to implement any UiPath or AI solution, in the beginning, it will only be 30 to 40 percent accurate. It doesn't get to 70 to 80 percent. These are the types of things that need to be improved in UiPath.

I would like to see the setup improved. First we install it, then we log in with Orchestrator, and then we have to log in to the UiPath website. I would like all this to be merged into one setup.

We cannot utilize the UiPath community edition license to operate any bots that we have created using that version in an enterprise environment. This is because we are obligated to employ UiPath Studio, which necessitates a distinct license for professional use.

The UiPath Community does not provide version control for the community edition. Let's say I'm currently using a specific version, and then it automatically upgrades the community version to the latest version without the user having the option to decide whether to update or not. Consequently, we cannot use the older versions in the UiPath community edition. I encountered some issues with my local machine. I created one of the bots using a different version from the community variation, there were problems with compatibility between different versions in UiPath. While those issues used to exist, currently, it has been a long time since I last modified any of the workflows and migrated between servers and my local machine. I'm not entirely certain at the moment, but previously, there were instances where a particular activity in one version would not work in another version and would result in failure. Additionally, sometimes the select task would not identify the select areas in the actual application, even though it worked on the validators. These scenarios are rare but they do occur.

UiPath's price has room for improvement.

The document understanding has room for improvement.

On the investment side, it is a huge investment, especially with the current situation in Sri Lanka. If they can reduce the price or provide affordable packages, it will be very helpful. On the development side, there are already so many new capabilities. They are also adding more AI capabilities. I have seen some of the users using AI tools, but I have not worked on them much.

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.

UiPath is not easy to work with, as a vendor, from a partner perspective. They are difficult to deal with.

There can be technical issues, but it's rarely about a server quitting. They are more like connectivity, platform, and software version issues, but there are no issues with UiPath performance. I would also like to see UiPath assist clients in scaling up their usage of the application because most of our clients had trouble expanding their usage into other departments. It was hard for them to calculate the exact value they were getting. Some of our clients were flying blind. Some of our clients hadn't really seen enormous impact from implementing and using automation yet. They had just started, and they saw the value in it, but it was hard for them to expand or add more value to automations with UiPath.

It would be beneficial to have the capability to track defects during the regression testing of applications.

Although AI functionality has improved in its ability to automate more complex or involved processes in the past five years, there is still ample room for further improvement. The APIs are predominantly on-premises-focused, and there should be greater availability of cloud-based APIs. There are workflows in which we use AI to take screenshots to assist us in making decisions, and these workflows need improvement.

AI machine learning has room for improvement. We use Google and Microsoft services. In some ways, Microsoft is more straightforward when we need to train a model compared to UiPath. There comes a point when we integrate UiPath with Microsoft Cognitive Services. For instance, we will also pay for these Microsoft Cognitive Services, not only for the UiPath license. It has an additional cost. However, in terms of usability, my impression is that Microsoft Cognitive Services are faster to configure and provide quicker results than UiPath document understanding, for example.

We would like to use several modules of UiPath, but they are very costly. All the additional features that we need are there, but they are in the modules that we have not bought. Its stability could have been better.

On the Orchestrator side, I would like to see more controls and conditions for RPA managers. If they advanced in those areas, it would help.

For some of the cognitive features we have to learn the integration side. Other than that, everything is fine.

We have used UiPath Academy courses for process mining. For RPA, we have some KPIs for developers to complete their education. In UiPath Academy courses, they have an option for the Turkish language for videos, but they are always in English. They should correct that. UiPath should integrate more machine learning and have more machine learning processes. In their development system, they have some machine learning tools, but they should increase them. With robots and structured data, in my opinion, we can use machine learning. The robots should also use machine learning to create some AI models. Its price should be reduced.

The artificial intelligence and machine learning features are good, but there is some room for improvement.

It isn't clear how to use UiPath to implement some use cases like chatbots, so we need to spend a lot of time searching for documentation on the web. To discover how to do these automations, you need to read and figure things out through trial and error.

The data team support that provides the UI and the chat services has room for improvement.

In the UiPath Community, a few questions get resolved and a few questions remain unresolved. UiPath has a big user community, but it needs to grow more. For example, during development, we might face some hurdles or hiccups while doing some of the tasks that we don't do on a daily basis, such as executing some API calls and getting some data. We faced some issues related to that, but when we searched for or asked about such issues in the UiPath Community, out of 10 questions, five to six questions remained unanswered. We had to resolve them on our own. So, UiPath needs to improve its community. They can offer some kind of reward for answering the questions asked in the community. It would be helpful if UiPath could provide developers to help us with the on-premises setup. Without that, we have to figure out how we do the setup. Its cost could also be better. We need to have a license for every robot, and it isn't possible for us to be able to run UiPath in our on-premises environment based on our usage. Even if we need to run a robot for an hour, we need to get a license for one year.

The user interface needs a little bit of improvement because it looks a little cheap due to being a very old tool. Otherwise, it works well. I would also like to see the ability for applications to work offline. Currently, they only work when online. If that is possible, that should be included in a future release.

Sometimes, UiPath becomes a little laggy when we move from one page to another.