UiPath Platform Reviews

I used UiPath for the energy sector and HR, but they were almost industrial processes. The bots were performing and doing transactions all the time.

The use cases were mostly about the extractions from several websites to manipulate data and to put data into other websites to update. We also had campaigns, and we needed to trigger and send lots of emails.

Our clients could automate manual tasks that were boring. They also implemented a chatbot using UiPath where whenever people called, they just entered the application, and UiPath could retrieve information about the person without them having to go to System A, System B, and System C.

UiPath enabled us to implement end-to-end automation. I went to a system, took the information, and went to a website to submit the information and take out the output. That was end-to-end automation.

It speeds up digital transformation.

UiPath reduces human error, but it also depends on the use cases. It has had a positive effect on our clients' businesses. 

Employee time has been reduced because bots can work faster than humans. It saved a lot of time for our clients, but I do not have the metrics.

UiPath, depending on the use case and the company's infrastructure, can save a lot of money. It saved a client's company half a million or a million. It is worth the money.

The best feature of UiPath is that it is easy to use. UiPath Orchestrator is also easy to use. 

Data scraping is very powerful in UiPath. It is very versatile.

I have not explored all the UiPath functionalities. I am exploring it a little bit more now, but they are moving to the modern experience, which is something I do not like. They are going in the wrong direction. I like the classic experience for developing, and as a developer, I am used to it, but they are going to the modern experience with selectors and other things. It might have certain advantages, but I do not like it. They should maintain the classic activities. They can consider providing both options instead of taking the classic ones away.

I have been using UiPath for almost three years.

I have always worked with UiPath for industrial processes. For instance, it was used for a company that was always processing contracts. They submitted new contracts and ended lots of them at the same time. We did not use it for filling forms or small automations. 

I have not contacted their support. I have used the UiPath Community. It is very easy to use. There are lots of people asking questions and lots of people answering them. I usually go there to consult other people. Their community is very valuable.

UiPath was the first RPA tool that I used. Before UiPath, I had only worked with BPM and BPMN solutions such as Appian and Bizagi. I switched to UiPath because my company chose it. We had a client who wanted to implement UiPath.

I have seen it deployed on-premises and also on the cloud. I do not know about the deployment of the UiPath infrastructure. I only know how to allocate licenses or install the UiPath license on a computer, which is not hard. It is easy.

It is worth the money if you have enough automation and enough use cases. That is applicable to every automation platform. As long as you have the use cases and you can automate them through that application, it will be worth the money.

It is expensive, and it is now getting more expensive. They are the number one in the market, and they are taking advantage of that. It is hard for the companies that have the full infrastructure supported on UiPath to change it. They have to keep it. UiPath is taking advantage of it.

Its cost depends on the company and the contract.

I used UiPath in my previous organization. I recently changed my organization, and I am now comparing RPA tools.

I would recommend UiPath to others if they have use cases for it.

I am certified in UiPath. I have used UiPath Academy courses. They are useful when you start developing. I have also attended their seminars.

I have not used UiPath's AI functionality in the automation programs. We started to use it, but then I changed the company.

Overall, I would rate UiPath an eight out of ten. I cannot compare it to others because I never used any other solution, but I find UiPath to be simple and easy to use.

I use it for RPA in bank reconciliation, credit card operations, retail banking, vendor invoice management, purchase order matching, and employee onboarding.

It helps to minimize the on-premises footprint and speeds up and reduces the cost of digital transformation. It also reduces human error and that reduces costs and makes systems more reliable. 

UiPath can also free up employee time. It depends on how many automation initiatives you run, but you can probably automate 20 to 30 percent of tasks.

Overall, the most valuable aspects are the automation, UI navigation, and orchestration.

It's fairly easy to use and automation can be done by relatively junior people. It's a low-code platform, so it requires a little bit of scripting but nothing too crazy. A business analyst can use it in most cases.

We're an implementation partner, so we don't use it for ourselves because we're too small. But for our client base, it enables end-to-end automation. That's a very important aspect, especially in banking where there is a lot of competition, the margins are low, and operating costs are high. They can't make any mistakes. That requires them to have an automation solution that does manual and repetitive tasks for them. It's a cost imperative.

And being part of the UiPath user community is a positive. I have also done a couple of the sales-oriented UiPath Academy courses. They are really easy to consume and they are free for partners and they're very business oriented.

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

I have been working with UiPath for two years, not as an engineer but in business development.

It's very stable. I've not heard of any major issues where the system collapses.

It's scalable. You can throw more and more robots at it.

Technical support from UiPath is slow but good enough.

Neutral

ROI depends on the customer and what they need, but you can definitely have a return on investment of 300 to 400 percent within about three years. It's a relatively quick payback.

They are the biggest RPA vendor with the highest market share. They have a good product and the company seems really innovative. They're branching out into AI and process mining, et cetera. Generally, as a vendor, they're the strongest one in the mix.

My advice is to start sooner rather than later with RPA.

There is a lot of hype around the topic of RPA and customers are exploring it, but they can't do it without partners; at least not the first couple of projects. Deployments with our customers take about six weeks.

We maintain the solutions we create. We normally have a support contract in place for at least the first couple of years. Maintenance, on our side, involves two or three people.

We use it for making end-to-end projects. We are working with a commodity trading company where we have automated almost 150 processes. We have automated daily tasks or repetitive tasks.

It allows us to implement end-to-end automation. It's an ongoing activity where everybody is involved in automating things. Everybody is looking for a cost-effective output. With manual processes, there are chances of errors, but with UiPath, there are no errors.

It's cost-effective. For example, if ten members of a team are working on a given task, with UiPath, that task can be done by one member. It saves costs for our clients, and they can use the freed-up employees for other important tasks. So, it saves time and costs and improves accuracy for our clients.

It helps to minimize the on-premises footprint.

It speeds up digital transformation or reduces the cost of digital transformation. Doing so doesn't require expensive or complex application upgrades or IT application support.

It reduces a lot of human errors. It also frees up employees' time, but there is a drawback. Previously, if a hundred-member team was working on a given task, after automation, you don't need that many people, and they end up losing their jobs. That's applicable to any kind of automation case or any of the automation apps. The time saved with automation varies. It depends on the project.

It's user-friendly. The UI is very user-friendly. It's quick to learn. Anyone can learn this tool.

The Orchestrator feature given in UiPath is very good for monitoring processes. We get alerts for everything on time.

The ReFramework feature available in UiPath is widely used. We have almost 90% of the processes running on ReFramework. Other built-in features are also very good. Exception handling is a very good feature that has been introduced in ReFramework.

The Insights feature that they have recently introduced is also very good. We can create dashboards and configure alerts.

The UiPath community is good. They also provide free-of-cost UiPath Academy where any beginner can learn about UiPath free of cost and get certified. It's a very good service provided by UiPath. I used UiPath Academy when I started with UiPath. The courses are very well prepared and detailed. There are videos, and there is a theoretical part. At the end of every course chapter, you have to take a test, so you get to know how good you are at that part. Each and every point and detail has been covered in the UiPath Academy courses.

I have not used it that much. It has been more than enough for my needs. However, its stability could be better. There are cases where because of the UiPath upgrade, some of the activity features get upgraded, and the processes that we have designed using an older version of UiPath don't run after the upgrade. In such scenarios, we have to downgrade and use only the older version. We have seen issues in that part. It's good to add new features, but that shouldn't impact the existing development of processes that we have done for our end users. We shouldn't have had to design features using the older version. We find it difficult when they remove or change features with the upgrade. We have to reach out to the UiPath community for a solution.

We have been using this solution for 2.5 years.

I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of stability.

I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability.

They are very quick. They have separate teams. You can email them your query and you get a response within two to three hours. I'd rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

I've used another tool previously, but we could only automate a limited number of processes with that tool, whereas, with UiPath, we don't have any such limitation. 

I wasn't involved in its setup.

I didn't evaluate other options. I had heard of Automation Anywhere, but more people were using UiPath, so I also chose that.

It's very good. I'd recommend it to everybody. You should use UiPath instead of any other tool.

If somebody wants to learn UiPath, I'd recommend UiPath Academy instead of purchasing a course from any of the other platforms or going to a class.

I'd rate UiPath a ten out of ten.

I have used UiPath for a city utility. The main purpose is if they want to dig in a particular location, they need to know how many pipelines are underneath the road, what the situation is regarding high-tension wires, gas pipelines, et cetera. For that, we needed to go to about 18 websites and scrape the maps from them into a local repository. We use UiPath to save that data from all the websites.

From there, there is an AI/ML solution that identifies the danger signals and notations on the map. It summarizes them and sends them to a mobile application used by a person who is at that location. That person can determine whether they are able to dig in that particular location or not.

UiPath reduces human error by automating a lot of manual steps. 

It also helps free up employee time. The amount of time depends on the use case. For the use case I described above, for the utility, the whole process of preparing one package would take one person two and a half hours. Automating it using UiPath and AI reduced it to two and a half minutes.

In terms of costs, for that use case, it has saved that company 30 to 40 percent.

Scraping with UiPath is easy, as is integration with some services. It's also easy to deploy solutions. 

Building automation takes place in a normal programming environment like Visual Studio. It's the same environment developers use. If you know development, building automation in UiPath is easy. Visually, it's all interactive and easy to work on.

The platform also has features for logging and monitoring things and communicating when there are errors.

The UiPath user community is a very good ecosystem with information about a lot of new features like AI, chat integration, and WhatsApp integration.

For training purposes and certification, we use the UiPath Academy. It's a very good resource and you get very good support from the community.

We also use the solution's AI functionality but so far only on low- to medium-complexity processes.

I would like to see them transition to the cloud and provide services there. That would be an improvement.

Also, it needs more integration with external services, and I would like it to have generative AI and more artificial intelligence features.

I have been using UiPath for about one and a half years.

The stability is good. I am satisfied with it.

The scalability is also good.

UiPath's technical support is good.

Positive

I used Automation Anywhere. I switched because our clients switched since UiPath is cheaper.

There is definitely ROI from using UiPath. Based on the fees and the load of the input, ROI will be calculated and used to decide whether the use case is worthwhile or not. It will be decided in the analysis and discovery phases. If ROI is feasible, only then will development take place.

With UiPath, there is an additional cost for Document Understanding. If the use case demands it, that feature should be used.

Even though our clients may have an Automation Anywhere ecosystem, they choose UiPath due to budget and cost. Apart from cost, both platforms offer almost all the features. However, from a technical perspective, Automation Anywhere has more utilities and components for building bots.

If it weren't for the cost, I would personally choose Automation Anywhere, on the technical side, because it has huge utilities and components for building bots. The move to UiPath is driven by budgets and costs.

As for end-to-end processing, when you are trying to come up with use cases for RPA, you will probably look at existing legacy applications that are not extendable. They won't have any more new releases but we still need to extract value from them. Use cases include reducing the processing steps and manual steps done, day-to-day, by people. End-to-end automation will help to stitch all the gaps and reduce the processing time.

UiPath is not cloud-based yet, so most of the work is done on-premises.

In terms of maintenance, one person on our support team monitors all the bots and attends to any problems.

I would recommend UiPath for small and medium-sized automation. If a company doesn't have a large budget, UiPath is the solution.

I have used UiPath for multiple use cases, such as data entry processes or extracting information from emails to certain applications. I have also used it for financial processes like invoicing and analytics, and there are IT applications like user onboarding. 

We can implement processes quickly with UiPath. It doesn't take us long to fix issues and develop a new process. It has enabled us to reduce our on-premise resources by automating around 30 to 40 percent of processes. We cut costs through digital transformation and managing model processes. 

UiPath freed up the time of some of our data staff. Some processes that would normally require three or four hours can be completed in under an hour. We can also utilize UiPath to get some tasks done on the weekends or after hours.

UiPath is user-friendly, so new users find it easy to understand. The processes are accurate. We see very few errors once they are implemented. The processes are reusable. We can create multiple components that we can use repeatedly and combine them with other processes. It's flexible. 

We used UiPath Academy when we were learning the tool, but we haven't used it that much since. It takes time to do the courses. I finished the initial tutorials in one or two days, but some courses can take an entire day. They last much longer than I need. 

UiPath allows end-to-end automation. We work with stakeholders to learn about their requirements, and UiPath has a thousand automation tools that can capture many kinds of processes.

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. 

I have used UiPath for a year.

I rate UiPath support an eight out of ten. There's some room for improvement. UiPath support should be more accessible. We should be able to connect to support faster and resolve the issues sooner. When we open a ticket, we would prefer to get a call instead of an email. A priority issue is easier to resolve over the phone, so that would be preferable. 

Positive

The UiPath license is costly. It would be helpful if we could get a bulk discount or any reduction, so we could use UiPath on a much larger scale. 

I rate UiPath a seven out of ten.

We have tried more of the RPA part. We haven't used much of the cognitive part.

We use it for our client purposes. We don't use it much for internal use.

It has helped to automate many processes. One of the places where we have tried it is the Citizen Development Engagement Program. That's where some of the people who were tech-savvy were able to use it properly.

It enables implementing end-to-end automation to an extent. Having a single tool for everything is helpful.

It reduces human error. A person can focus on his or her core activities rather than doing repetitive tasks.

It has freed up employee time. The time saved could be 70% to 80% depending on the use case of an employee.

The product is good. It's highly scalable, and it's stable. Over the last one and a half years, based on whatever we have developed, we've found it to be pretty stable as compared to the other platforms, such as Automation Anywhere.

We have used UiPath Academy courses. In UiPath Academy, there are courses and role-based training programs. They are good and effective. They give you some exercises to perform, and the community edition is also available, which is good.

The cognitive capabilities of UiPath are pretty time-consuming. If that can be improved, it would help a lot.

I'm not using it directly. Our team has been using it for the last seven or eight years. I have some experience with it but not to a very detailed level. 

It's stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

It's scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability.

Their support was good, but at the same time, for certain areas where we had issues, we had to directly call them up and try to get support from their internal COE teams. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We weren't using any other solution previously.

I wasn't involved in its initial setup.

They would've not directly saved costs, but they certainly would've gotten some value in terms of time efficiency or productivity, which would've indirectly helped them to save costs. The savings also depend on the FTEs freed because of automation.

I didn't evaluate any other solution, but people in my company might have evaluated other options.

Understand the product first, go through their internal training, and then decide whether you like it and how you want to use it.

It can speed up digital transformation or reduce the cost of digital transformation, depending on how you use it and where you use it. This digital transformation doesn't require complex application upgrades, but support upgrades are required.

I've explored UiPath's community, but in a couple of instances, I didn't get any proper responses or proper answers. We had to directly get in touch with the UiPath team for insights and information about the queries we had.

Overall, I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten.

I work in development, creating robots, and I use UiPath for automation.

UiPath has helped to minimize our on-premise footprint and reduced human error. It has also sped up digital transformation and reduced its cost without requiring any expensive or complex application upgrades.

UiPath's best feature is that it's low code. UiPath also has the best community I can think of in the IT sector.

UiPath would be improved by integrating AI.

I've been working with UiPath for four years.

UiPath is very stable.

UiPath is very easy to scale.

UiPath makes it easy to build automations, monitor the activity of the robots, and let the business side interact with the robots. It also has a lot of applications, starting from test capture and process mining to reporting the activity of the robots. UiPath is a simple solution if you're looking to save time and money, but in the long term, I would suggest customizing the main applications you're using. I would rate UiPath nine out of ten.

We have two primary use cases. We use UiPath to scrape data from multiple websites and platforms, mainly for competitive intelligence and internal use. The other use case is basic automation, that is, moving files from one system to another when there is no direct integration. Through UiPath and leveraging RPAs, we pull data from one system, for example, an S3 bucket or Google Drive, and put it into our database.

The use of UiPath has resulted in time savings for our organization. It has probably saved us 40 development hours a month.

Building automation with UiPath is easy. If you compare it to building these scripts using Python or any other programming languages directly, then it is incomparable. If you write a .NET or a Python code, it will take a lot of time development-wise. The ease of building automations is very high compared to that with programming languages.

End-to-end automation is important to us in terms of deployment and development. Development is definitely easy, but the orchestration of those flows and deployment can be a hassle to maintain and manage. With UiPath, we are able to monitor the workloads and orchestrate the different workloads within the app ecosystem itself.

The UiPath community has grown and is active. It is definitely helpful to be a part of it because others can assist us.

UiPath Academy courses helped reduce the learning curve.

You can speed up digital transformation and reduce the cost of digital transformation using UiPath. It provides a good orchestrator, and the fully managed option can help reduce the burden on IT staff.

We have been able to reduce human error by using UiPath. Suppose we need to move files from one place to another. If we move it through a system and predefined rules, the system will not make a mistake. It will always pick up the particular file and concatenate it where it is supposed to. However, a human can, by mistake, concatenate one file to another.

For small use cases, it would be great to have independent runner licenses with costs that are comparable to those of Power Automate. Then, UiPath would be a better alternative.

The AI functionality was not that effective in complex scenarios when I used it some time ago.

I would like to see a universal recorder feature added so that we can record Excel macros. You could then click a button to record the screen, and then all the actions across applications would be recorded. This functionality is available already in Automation Anywhere, but the last time I checked, it was not available in UiPath.

I've used it for over a year.

UiPath is a stable solution.

It is a scalable tool.

I found the initial setup to be straightforward, and it took less than a week. You don't need dedicated staff to maintain the solution.

We implemented it ourselves. We had a team of three who worked on the deployment.

We haven't seen much ROI; it has been average. As a result, we are moving to Power Automate.

The pricing is competitive, and for large-scale use cases, UiPath may make better sense cost-wise. However, it is not very viable for small-scale use cases. Power Automate is much cheaper and has similar functionalities.

UiPath offers two options. If you choose the on-premises option, then you would have to manage it yourself, but if you go for the fully managed one, then there won't be any overhead cost.

We are gradually moving to Power Automate and Power Apps because we are already on the Microsoft stack, and it helps us reduce the footprint. If the cost of UiPath were comparable to that of Power Automate, then UiPath would have been the better alternative.

In my previous company, we used Power Automate, Automation Anywhere, and UiPath. The only good aspect of Power Automate is that it has very minimal cost implications. IQ Bot from Automation Anywhere is slightly better than UiPath's AI capability. Also, the ease of building automations with UiPath is comparable to that of Automation Anywhere and Power Automate.

Overall, I would rate UiPath at eight out of ten.

We use it for unattended automation. Most of it is centered around finance for various reporting purposes. We also use this solution to move data between systems.

The biggest improvement is giving people time back in their day. We're still not where we'd like to be with our automation journey, so we don't have the time savings that we would like at the moment. However, we are continuing on that journey and helping to free up users and allowing them to work on things they want to work on.

The Excel integration is definitely good. We use that a lot because our finance department uses Excel. Overall, I really like Studio and unattended automation. Automation Cloud is very good as well. The platform as a whole has been good for us.

I like the UiPath user community, and the forums are really good. Most of the time, I can find answers there to any issues I'm having. The UiPath forums are very active, and I like seeing the employees in there as well.

We onboard any new developers that we have for RPA using UiPath Academy. It reduces the amount of training time in which the RPA team is involved because the Academy courses can take care of a lot of the fundamentals on UiPath.

Integration is an area for improvement. I still encounter issues with it, like getting errors when I try to use a connection.

We've been using it since 2019.

I have no complaints regarding the stability of UiPath. We have never had any issues with regressions or weird bugs.

We're still in the early stage of our journey with UiPath. Right now, we have six unattended robots and about 25 processes running on those, which is not at a scale where we might see issues. However, I have no complaints with regard to scalability so far.  Also, achieving the scalability we may need seems pretty straightforward.

UiPath's technical support is on par with that of other companies. We seem to spend a lot of time sending logs back and forth, and because of that, I would give technical support a rating of seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup was not too bad. We started in the finance units since they were the ones pushing for RPA, and they've been our biggest internal customers so far.

We worked with our reseller who guided us through the entire setup. They did a few automations for us until we had that practice in-house.

In terms of ROI, we are saving more than what the platform costs us. We are at about 1.5 million in savings due to recent automation. It was a little less than that before. These are soft savings and don't show up on balance sheets. We're trying to work toward automation that actually do lead to hard savings. We've saved about 43,000 hours in a year so far.

The licensing makes sense, but it does lead to a few adoption issues when a lot of the licenses are per user. Convincing some of our business units to pay for user licenses for either Action Center or attended robots can be a roadblock.

We looked at Blue Prism. The biggest reason for going with UiPath is that we are a heavy .NET shop. Therefore, the fact that UiPath is based on .NET and that we can write our own custom activities in C# bar and Visual Basic were big factors for us. It meant that we would be able to adopt UiPath faster and that it would fit with our current Microsoft stack as well. We also liked where the UiPath platform as a whole was going, becoming not just RPA development but integrations as well. In comparison, Blue Prism seemed to have stuck with RPA and not expanded much beyond that.

Take a look at UiPath's platform as a whole and what it can do aside from just RPA automation. I would also advise you not to discount the tech stack. Overall, I like the platform, and I think it's headed in the right direction. Because of that, I would give it a rating of nine on a scale from one to ten.

The solution helps our organization with filing sales and use tax returns. We mainly copy and paste data from Excel and process it in the solution. 

We do not use AI yet, but want to start looking into it. 

The solution has helped by decreasing the manual work required to file certain tax returns. A manual return takes about an hour but bots can complete the work in twenty minutes. This time savings has been a big help for our organization. 

The Studio is valuable because it helps us to build bots.

The Insights have been super valuable because they help us determine the benefits of our bots.

The Insights could be improved to be more user friendly and less reliant on code for building specific dashboards.

The Orchestrator could be improved to make it easier to manage folders where bots are stored.  

I have been using the solution since July of 2021. 

The solution is stable and we have no problems running bots. 

The solution is scalable and it is pretty easy to see how processes can be applied across multiple teams. 

The Community is very cool and it has been interesting to see all the various companies involved with the solution. There are many good ideas and it is valuable to hear from speakers. 

The Academy offers courses that are very helpful and assist in getting up and running. Instead of having to figure everything out, classes are available for learning Studio, StudioX, and Insights a bit quicker.  

Technical support has been fine but nothing special. I have only opened a few cases so far and support resolved those problems. 

Neutral

We did not previously use another solution. 

The setup and deployment was pretty straightforward. 

Many things come with the cloud platform so they can be a bit complex until you learn about them. I feel like we are learning new things on the platform every day. Once we learn a product, it is relatively straightforward. 

We implemented the solution in-house. We wanted to cover the lowest hanging fruit that would give us the most immediate benefit. 

With initial deployment completed, we have moved to taking our time to learn Studio and expand to more complex automations. We work with Tquila Automation who has been very helpful with development and learning. 

We have realized ROI because we have saved over 1,200 hours that would have been required for manual filings. This has been a big help because staff can instead focus on other things. 

The solution is definitely expensive but is a powerful technology that we do not expect for free. It is important to justify the business cost by explaining the ROI to stakeholders. 

We evaluated several options before choosing the solution, including Blue Prism. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.