We performed a comparison between ElectroNeek and NICE Robotic Automation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Robotic Process Automation (RPA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The cost is the best thing about ElectroNeek."
"We find the OCR feature very valuable, due to the corrector recognition that it provides; this is very useful for document processing."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The most valuable feature is the price."
"My favorite feature is that you can have unlimited bots without having to buy more licenses. That's a powerful option for scalability."
"The product's setup is straightforward."
"The solution is user-friendly with a really good UI and ID."
"ElectroNeek was extremely easy to use, especially its UI was easy to navigate with limited training."
"Through interfaces called Callout (created with HTML code) it is possible to create a strong interactivity with the user. These interfaces can be extremely dynamic in relation to the behavior of a local or remote robotic flow."
"It is easy to deploy. To do the automation in NICE, you really need to use your programming expertise. There are no inbuilt features in it, and you have to create all the required features, which can be very interesting for a programmer."
"It is a kind of desktop automation. Its licensing model is a little bit different. It tends to be individual automation specific to a role. It excels at that."
"What we've done with the RTI client is that we've brought it into a bit more of a 21st-century feel. Our agents have the ability to move around when they want, click into stuff. They use it according to how their conversations go with the customer."
"Provides good automation features."
"NICE is one of the only vendors that does attended and unattended out-of-the-box. Using the unattended processes we've been able to build a "feature library." We break each process down into workable chunks that we can save into a big library. The next time we come to automate a task, we already have chunks of that automation built."
"The deployment of NICE Robotic Automation is easy."
"The solution needs to improve its stability."
"The solution works well with Google Chrome, but not with Microsoft Edge, which is the browser we use for automation."
"When I wanted to use web scraping for tables in web applications, I found through online forums that such functionality or activity is currently not working as it shows."
"Its price could definitely be lower."
"The integrating capability of the product needs to be improved, to ensure that it works with all systems involved in a process."
"The pricing is an area with a shortcoming, and from an improvement perspective, it needs to be made cheaper."
"I think that this solution could improve remote desktop interactions."
"It's not applicable to very large enterprises and for difficult work or more complex processes."
"Its connectivity with other applications should be improved. In the version that I was using, it would just stop interacting with the other application. Its graphical interface should also be improved. It should have a user-friendly interface. Sometimes, people find it very difficult to understand. One of the obstacles that I faced while programming was that if I needed any kind of help, there wasn't much content on the internet. It can be very difficult to find a solution for a particular issue."
"There is a need for NICE robotics to be more user-friendly."
"We haven't found it to be as powerful as some of the other platforms. From a true RPA perspective, it is pretty far behind some of the other solutions. It has emerged as a more desktop automation kind of tool, but it lacks a lot of enterprise features. It is not really a true RPA because of its licensing, which is kind of user-initiated. It would be nice it can be deployed at a more enterprise licensing model versus a user-based model. It didn't have autonomous automation so far, and they have just released this feature. They have kind of hodgepodged a bunch of products together to get there, but it is not as seamless as other solutions."
"The solution is not as intuitive as it could be and integrating took a lot of time."
"[During the upgrade] any issues, where it couldn't remotely connect to upgrade, I needed the floor plan so I could go to that PC and have a look at it. Often it was either that the PC was switched off or had a bug or some other application needed to be reset."
"There are a few areas for improvement in the installation phase"
"The one thing I'd like to see, and NICE is already heavily investing in it, is improvement in the user interface itself. They call it the Designer and it's what the developers use. It is a bit clunky; that is the polite way to put it. I'd like to see it be a bit more user-friendly, a bit more intuitive, and to move to something a bit more web-based..."
ElectroNeek is ranked 20th in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 9 reviews while NICE Robotic Automation is ranked 22nd in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 7 reviews. ElectroNeek is rated 7.4, while NICE Robotic Automation is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of ElectroNeek writes "User-friendly, good UI, but does not work well with Microsoft Edge". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NICE Robotic Automation writes "Automating customer-facing processes has saved us considerable money and increased sales and customer satisfaction". ElectroNeek is most compared with UiPath, Microsoft Power Automate, Automation Anywhere (AA) and Robocorp, whereas NICE Robotic Automation is most compared with UiPath, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere (AA) and Microsoft Power Automate. See our ElectroNeek vs. NICE Robotic Automation report.
See our list of best Robotic Process Automation (RPA) vendors.
We monitor all Robotic Process Automation (RPA) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
