UiPath Platform Reviews

We are using Studio and the attended robots, but we haven't implemented Orchestrator yet.

Our primary use is to automate tasks within the accounts receivable, accounts payable, and trade settlement realm that we work in. We're also getting into some more internal audit automation.

We run automations in Windows Virtual Machines. It was a long process for us to get started, getting our IS to buy into letting us set up this environment and get started with it.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a two or three. They offer upfront training, the UiPath Academy, and that makes it easier but you still need to have a technical mindset to understand it, as it is now.

We have all used the Academy. On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. It's a great experience and very beneficial.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately six months. It took us a while because we had a bunch of other projects in front of getting our first automation. The process was hard, although it was not complicated. The approval process involved going through a security review. 

We have not found that our automations have saved us money, yet. However, it's giving people back the time so that they can do more value-added work.

With respect to saving time, we have just measured the out rate. We're probably saving thirty hours a week with what we have going now, so almost one FTE.

This solution has absolutely helped reduce or eliminate human errors, although I cannot estimate by how much at this time.

Using this solution has definitely increased the confidence and communication that we have between departments because we're saving a lot of department time, and they can focus on their value-added tasks. With this, they're a lot more willing to work with us, and they're happier employees.

The most valuable features of Studio are all of the activities that UiPath and their partners have developed.

The biggest problem that we have when working with this solution is the selectors. If there was a little more flexibility with the selectors, and they were a little bit more adaptive, I think it would be helpful.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution four and a half to five. We haven't had any problems.

Currently, we have twelve automations running.

In our organization, we have three people directly doing automation and design work. There are probably six or seven more than are trying to get the larger enterprise into UiPath and get their departments set up with it.

The technical support for this solution is excellent. They got back to me really quickly and provided the solutions that I needed. It was very helpful.

We were not using another RPA solution prior to this one. In deciding to invest in this technology, we recognized that people were doing a lot of tedious processes and that we can make better use of their time.

Huron Consulting assisted us with the implementation and deployment, and they were very helpful. On a scale from one to five, I would rate them a five.

We have been asked to start measuring for tracking ROI but have not yet begun. However, I can say informally that we have seen performance benefits. People are very happy with the things we've automated so far and they're just glad to be relieved of some of that tedious work.

Right now we only have a couple of Studio licenses and a couple of bots, so we're at about $8,000 USD per year. We're hoping to ramp that up pretty soon.

We evaluated Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere before choosing this solution.

One of the major reasons that we chose UiPath was because they gave a free trial at the time when we were looking at it, and none of the other vendors did. Then they also have the UiPath Academy, which allowed us to look at it first and then learn how to use it before we actually had to make an investment.

From a cost perspective, the unattended robots are going to be of more benefit because they can run twenty-four hours a day. At the same time, the attended robots are pretty affordable. I think we're coming up with more use cases where people have it on their desktop and want to be able to run it on demand. We have definitely benefited from both types of robots.

We are looking forward to some of the new features that are going to be released. One of them is in the UI, where you can document what your processes have and figure out if any have the potential for automation. That is going to be very helpful.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to first speak with a partner. If someone is new and hasn't been in this space before, it's going to be kind of confusing and they're going to need somebody to guide them it setting it up.

This is a really great product and there's a lot of potential for it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We have robots and we have Orchestrator and we are exploring the new analytics model over the next few months. Right now, our primary use is mostly operational processes and deploying apps for the global operations team. We have multiple automation processes in place for them already.

The product has improved the way our organization functions in a lot of ways. Mostly, I would say it improves our processing efficiency. When you have one person working eight to five to take care of tasks and can replace that, instead, with a bot that can work 24 hours a day to onboard customers or entering information to a form, that drives a lot of value for the organization. With that benefit and decreasing human error as well, that turns into a lot of value for a global organization like us.

The most valuable feature in UiPath is different from one process that we build to the next. I would say that the ease of configuring new processes may be one of the most consistently valuable features for our robot production. Creating a process is just a drag-and-drop solution most of the time. With this automated feature for process creation, it is very easy to make what we need, and that ease-of-use is valuable.

There are a few areas where the product can be improved for our use. Invoice processing, for us, is a major use case. I saw some examples in our research that mentioned machine learning models and how to implement that in the new, upcoming version. It seems that the machine learning would solve some of our current issues in processing. That is one feature that I would like to see and experiment with when it is released. I want to explore that to see not only what it can do, but how efficient it is and how it affects the performance of invoice processing models. The other feature we are interested in that is promised to be in the next release is the VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure) desktop. 

Those two features, for us, are critical. But we also need them to be fast and efficient for us to be able to use it in practice. Otherwise, we are going to continue struggling with the solutions we already have. The solutions are kind of already there in UiPath, and I think they need to work hard on the performance of anything they release. This is especially true for those two solutions. For us to have a good business case for deploying them for use, we need them to be efficient.

A feature that we tried to use that clearly has room for improvement is the UiPath Computer Vision component. We have tried to use that but it was not efficient enough for our planned applications. It was a little disappointing. It needs to be improved in performance and in the design of the machine learning models. It is pretty easy to use for people considering the technology. I just don't think it is quite to the point where it should be.

On a scale from one to five with one being the least stable and five being the most, I would rate the stability of UiPath as pretty stable. For us, it has really been a five.

We have 35 employees involved in the automation program doing configuration. We also have three platform administrators and a bunch of automation champions right now — there are quite a few of the latter.

Customer support, in general, is pretty good. They are very responsive. We have one dedicated support person in New York and we always get support right away. But there are other facets to UiPath technical support.

The classroom and Academy training are both easy to use and beneficial. On a scale of one to five where five is the best, I would rate these resources as a five-out-of-five. It was and is beneficial and it is available to help the staff get oriented to the product and resolve production issues.

We have 35 configurators. Of those 35, I will say that only five or ten of them were formally and personally trained by a trainer at our site in Costa Rica. The rest — and really most of the configurators — have been trained only using the UIPath Academy suite. So, with some senior resources available and the Academy, you can establish a team of proficient configurators in a very short time.

The reason why we choose UiPath was because they let us play with the tool before we bought into it. We were looking at many vendors for an RPA solution, but the other vendors wanted us to pay first before they would let us explore the products and what they could do. With UiPath we were able to play first without paying and that's something that was attractive and showed that the company was forward-thinking and confident. We explored the product and saw that it was something that could help us to solve some of our problems. So that is why we identified it as a solution and eventually selected it as the product that was going to cover our processing needs.

The initial setup was pretty easy because we had the assistance of UiPath experts on-site. They helped us with the first deployment. They did a lot to help make it pretty easy. It might be more accurate to say it was not easy, but that because of them it went smoothly. That's what their group was there to do: sort out modeling problems pretty quickly and get the product to production.

We used a consultant and our experience with them on a scale from one to five where five is the best, I would say they were a five-out-of-five. They knew what they were doing and were excellent in promoting the deployment. We have no complaints about their services or the result.

We have automated a lot of things and realized about a million-dollar return on investment in about a year-and-a-half. There is still a lot more to do in our company. We are big, so we have a lot of opportunities for automation and we are expected to be producing even more benefits than we already have. But a million-dollar return on investment is pretty good and is only the beginning of what we will eventually realize.

Right now we have around 200 licenses in terms of the bots we have in production. I know the cost is about $200,000 or $300,000 per year. I am not sure about additional costs.

From what I understand UiPath is cheap when you compare the costs to other vendors in the same market. In any case, the price seems to be good in comparison to the actual benefit. We also have some type of special agreement for pricing discounts because we are one of the early adopters who engaged with UiPath for use of the product. I feel we have some very special treatment and the price, for us, is reasonable and convenient.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight out of ten. The reason why it is an eight and not a ten is because there are some specific considerations — especially in performance and machine learning — that we believe has a lot of room for improvement. They are starting to introduce the functionality, they are doing a good thing in introducing it, but there could be a lot of improvement.

If I would make a recommendation for people considering automation options, I would say that they should take advantage of manufacturers that let you play with their product to evaluate if a particular solution is convenient for you. This is the reason why UiPath became the more convenient option for our company when we were looking to start with process automation.

For us, the virtual implementation has been working well because we have deployed everything that we automated in our Citrix environment. Now the new question is how easy it will be to interact with target applications through our VDI desktop. Resolving that to this point has been pretty tough for us and it is actually one of our constraints in making processes work efficiently.

Robotic processing has helped to eliminate human errors and reducing human error is definitely one of the basic benefits that those moving into robotics should expect — if they are approaching automation correctly.

The solution also saved our organization time. For example, we had the one case where we had to onboard around 2 million customers. What that would take in terms of manual hours is about a month and a half. Instead, using RPAs, we were able to complete the task in one week. That is just one example. We have multiple examples in three years of automation. 

We use Studio, Orchestrator, attended and unattended robots.

We use this solution to solve the things that people don't want to do. They spend a lot of time and there is a high potential to make manual errors. Quality suffers because it takes too long and users can get fatigued. There are the things that we are targeting and we have already seen some of the benefits.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a four. It is easy, but there are some improvements that can be made.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. It is my lifeline. 

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately six to eight months. I felt that the process was complicated, in part because of UiPath but also partly because of internal things.

Internally, in order to get set up, the entire infrastructure needs to be in place. All of the servers have to be set up and you need the right permissions because the bots need their own security. You have to explain to people that this is going to be a service account, and you have to explain the need for it. These are all internal, but necessary issues.

This solution has saved our organization time. I would estimate that the bots save us four weeks every month.

In terms of eliminating human errors, this solution absolutely helps in that regard. The bots don't make any mistakes. Rather, they point out the mistakes that have been made by humans so far.

The ability that this solution has to work with Excel is really good.

The SAP feature looks helpful and we are going to explore that functionality in our next project. 

We don't like the attended bot experience, where it requires the user to be hands-off. We installed it on the user's machine, and the user should not touch the mouse or keyboard because the moment they do, it crashes. It takes over the machine and cannot work in the background. For this reason, it is difficult to work out scenarios that are purely attended. 

For example, we have a process that downloads two files and then does some massaging of the data. Now, the data needs to be looked at by the user. An email is sent and the files are deposited into a common folder, and the user will address the task when they have time. After the user manipulates some of the data or makes decisions, it can proceed to the next step.

They drop the modified files into the common folder, but the bot doesn't react because there is no feature in Orchestrator to trigger based on the arrival of a new file. Instead, we have to put in a call to check periodically, whether it be five minutes, fifteen minutes or some other interval. This is something that we don't find desirable.

Creating a trigger that is based on either the arrival of a file or the arrival of an email is a common scenario and it should be built into the platform so that I don't have to code for it every time. As it is now, there are only two ways to trigger a bot.

Orchestrator does not have a good filtering mechanism to look for jobs, and the table view needs to be improved.

From the UiPath side, one thing that irritates me is that you cannot find the downloads to upgrade to the new version. I'm a paid customer and I log in with my credentials, but I cannot download it. I need to create a ticket, tell them who I am, and I have to give them a long list of things that I don't remember. They will address the ticket maybe today or tomorrow, and then finally I get a response. When I use other tools like Microsoft and SAP, as a customer or subscriber of the tool, I just download the latest versions and install them on my servers. When I have a mandate to do work, I want to be able to do it. However, when I can't download the file and have to wait for a ticket to be answered, this wastes my time.

The integration with Elasticsearch and Kibana is a struggle. They are not UiPath products, but they are recommended by UiPath. Some documentation is provided, but it is an Orchestrator installer package the just installs itself. I had to do a lot of experimentation on Windows machines because the configuration is different for Linux machines, and this gave me some trouble. There is a lot of information about this in the UiPath forums and I spent a lot of time on it.

Right now, I have a set of configuration data that I put into an Excel file. The users can change the file and my app will run using the configuration variables. A problem occurs if the Excel file is not closed properly because there are locking issues. This is a pain because the bot crashes when opening a locked file. There is something in Orchestrator called Assets, but it is kind of limited. It only accepts text and a credential. It would be nice if it had a simple database table, say to be able to create a couple of columns that I want to set up for a bot-related task. Rather than a single piece of text, there is a whole table of information. My users will be able to edit it, based on the permission that I assign. Then the bot will look at it and work according to what is specified. This would be a great feature to have.

I would like to see the Studio web-based so that we don't have to install it on everybody's desktop. 

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. I have never had any problems with the platform itself. I haven't had to restart the servers or anything like that.

We have three people in the organization who work with the bots.

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

In deciding whether and RPA would benefit us, we followed the guidelines that UiPath provided, which is a twelve-step validation process. If processes are unchanging, there is a lot of manual work, there is the potential for errors, and it's simple to automate, etc, then RPA may be suitable. Based on this assessment, we made the investment in RPA.

Our own team was responsible for the implementation.

We have recognized ROI through savings in employee hours. For our PoC, with two projects, we saved one full-time employee.

It took us one year to see ROI, although I don't think that we have saved any money yet because of the development time. If we negate the development cost then it might be $60,000 USD, as a developer's salary, but we're not there yet. One of the things that I am trying to do is motivate people to look at more processes that we can automate because right now, my bots are sleeping and I want to put them to work.

Our licensing fees are approximately $140,000 USD annually, which includes all of the bots, Orchestrator, and the Studio.

In our company, there is another group that had already implemented UiPath, and they have had good success. We followed their lead, but in addition, we reviewed other sources such as the Gartner ranking. The features set was also considered during the evaluation.

I feel that the cost of the bot is worth it, provided that we make use of it. The unattended bot is cheaper, but it is useless for us right now because there is no use case. We think that Studio X might change that, and I've heard that the Studio X license includes the attended bot. So, if we swap the attended bot license that we currently have then we could take them away and then get the Studio X license, and that will motivate more people to make their own automations.

No organization has unlimited resources, but the business is changing around us and we are always tasked with new things to do. In that aspect, you have to make room for innovation, and you have to automate.

UiPath has shown tremendous gains with this solution. They're sitting on the shoulders of Microsoft .NET, and they've shown some initiative on what you can do with a generic platform. They offer free training and a Community Edition for people to experiment with, and it can do wonders for the world. We have seen that happening and I love that.

This is a company that is listening to customers' feedback and I think that they should keep doing that.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to start by watching all of the videos. Go through the UiPath Academy and get a feel of what it can do. Read all of the case studies and see what other people have done. You will get a feeling for the ROI. Then download the Community Edition and play with it to see for yourself what gain you can get from this tool. Finally, start small and just keep adding to it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using Orchestrator and robots.

Our primary use for this solution is Accounts Payable invoice automation.

We run automations in the virtual environment provided by the Amazon service. Our implementation has been finicky at times. The latest release is a lot more stable, but I've had a two-week production outage where DLLs weren't registered and someone from Vegas had to log in for eight hours to our servers. They had to uninstall and reinstall the solution, as well as all of the different apps. I lost a bit of faith in the solution with that incident.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four. It's pretty easy to use, but it wouldn't be a five because it isn't doing everything for me. Things still need to be done.

I have not taken the Academy training but my team has. On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a four.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately two weeks. The process was pretty straightforward.

With respect to saving time, the last company I worked with was trying to save one thousand FTE. So far, they are already at sixty FTE, and in Australia, we're at ten FTE.

This solution has helped us to reduce human errors, although it has created other errors.

Orchestrator has a lot of good features including the configuration, the queues, the transaction reporting, the logs, and accessibility.

This technology gives you the ability to build a solution using any legacy system.

I would like to see more support for the cloud in Australia.

A tool that better identifies the processes, watches the computer and works it out for me, would be an improvement.

The stability of this solution has improved since we started using it. Now that I have done an upgrade, it seems to be a lot better.

I was running High-Density on the 2016.2 or 2016.3 version, and I had a lot of problems. I couldn't determine whether they were just UiPath issues or it could be partly attributed to the client app. What we noticed was that if you log in as Console, you have far fewer issues than if you run High-Density.

These days, I would rate the stability a four out of five. 

We had between fifty and a hundred people working in the automation program in the old company.

I have only used technical support once and my experience with them was not good. That was during our two-week outage.

We used Blackbook.ai to assist us with our implementation and our experience with them was awesome. 

We have seen ROI from this solution in terms of money saved. Just in Australia, we have saved a million dollars. In India, we have saved maybe five million dollars.

At the last company I worked with, the annual licensing fees were $700,000 USD.

From a cost perspective, I have an issue with the price of the bots. At the company that I was with previously, we were paying $3,600 USD per bot. With the new company that I am at, because we're new and we don't have the size, we are paying $8,000 USD per bot.

It was 2016 when I evaluated this solution, and it had a small market share at the time.

Everything I had read about Blue Prism said that it was too heavy, too old school, and had too much development ramp-up time. I looked at Automation Anywhere and UiPath. Automation Anywhere had a good price point, especially for a PoC. However, in between Blackbook.ai and what I saw out of UiPath, I felt that UiPath was the better option.

This solution is pretty good. It's an enabler. There is a lot of investment and a lot of new things. My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to make sure that it is set up to scale correctly.

What I would like to see is everything as a SaaS, completely, bots included, and I want it hosted in Australia.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using Studio and Orchestrator, and we purchased an unattended bot.

Our UiPath is integrated with Kibana, which is a free tool.

Our primary use of this solution is to automate manual processes. We have approximately eighty use cases to automate.

The RPA team includes two developers, a manger, and two BPOs.

We run automations in a virtual environment, but I am not familiar with the details.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a five. We just drag and drop. If you want to write something we use "Type Into". If you want to click, we use the corresponding click application. For me, it's very easy, and we also have tutorials available on the UiPath website. That is something that is very useful for everyone who wants to learn, and even a non-programmer can start learning to become a developer.

The Academy RPA training was very beneficial and I would rate it a five out of five. You cannot skip one step. There are ten sections and you cannot skip any of them. It means that until you pass a certain test, it will not allow you to go to the next lesson. This restricts people from jumping directly into another section. I really like the training and it is very easy. The tutorials are not very lengthy, they are simple, and the way they are explained is relatable. The practice tests that were conducted at the end were really helpful.

We partnered with IVy to create our first two pilot bots, and from the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately six months. It was very easy because they helped us.

This solution obviously helps us when it comes to eliminating human errors. I cannot estimate the percentage, but our company is manual process-intensive. We have a lot of manual processes like invoicing, where we have a process with the business team. They pull out an invoice number and a purchase order number from a PDF, and the source PDF is not structured. When it was being done manually, they had encountered issues entering data into one of their applications. This is one place where human errors have been reduced.

Using this solution has saved us time. For example, we have a huge process and I have heard that it saves us millions of dollars every year. Each human takes forty hours to complete the task, whereas it takes the unattended bot between ten and fifteen minutes.

Any savings in time for humans gives them time to work on something else.

The most valuable feature in Studio is the macros. They are very useful but at the same time, it depends on how we write them.

UiPath is very easy to learn.

When we deploy code into Orchestrator, sometimes there are macro activities that worked in Studio but do not work correctly in production. For example, I have implemented a Text Reading Activity that worked fine in Studio, but after deploying the code into Orchestrator it does not read the text exactly. I was able to create a workaround by using a split function in the code. It was reading the text fine because the data is being read using split functions, but this is something that I would like to see fixed.

I would like to see more AI and natural language processing.

Having chatbots available would be a helpful inclusion in a future release of this solution.

Customer support and technical support are very nice. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

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

We partnered with IVy to assist us with the implementation. They helped us with two pilot bots. One of them was not up to the mark, so our CEO decided to have it reprogrammed. I would rate them a four out of five.

We have our own IT team that looks after connecting the servers with Orchestrator.

I am not updated regularly about how much money this solution saves us, but I have recently heard that we saved $400,000 USD in six months.

After our CEO decided to invest in RPA, we chose UiPath because it is easy to learn.

I have heard of Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere, but I have not learned them or worked with them.

We are looking forward to the new tools, and when they launch, we are definitely going to use them.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to speak with UiPath. Many people do not know how to start. The basic things they should have are a proper PDD (Process design document) and a recording of the manual process. These two things are essential. It is also very important to hire the right partner if you do not have your own developers because some of them are not up to the mark.

This solution is simple and easy to implement. I know there are lots of new features coming and every year they are providing good solutions with every release. There is always something new that minimized errors in previous versions.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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

Our primary use for this solution started with automating processes in finance, procurement, and HR. Now, we are researching various directions in logistics.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment. This is something that we are trying to avoid.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a four. I'm an IT-based person, and for IT people it is easy to learn. UiPath claims that it is easy to learn and it's for everybody, but it's not true. For business people, it is hard to learn and hard to understand how to code to make things work. They need a lot of help with things like exception handling. If somebody lacks technical or programming skills then it makes it much more difficult to use. Although UiPath is getting closer to business users, there are still some basic skills that they need to have to make it work.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. When I get new hires it doesn't matter whether they have previous experience in RPA or development, they have to go through all of the basic training from the Academy. This includes the Orchestrator and I've been recommending SAP training because we are experiencing growth in the use of SAP. Going to my team, this is the base, and then we have created our internal framework and standards that also require training. Some people may already have experience with UiPath or Blue Prism, but they still need to take the training from the Academy.

Before I arrived at the company, there were already some automations running. However, fifteen months ago we shut down a couple of robots because they were failing terribly. From that time, it took us five months to create the first robot.

We have a project that combines UiPath with OCR and our integration tool. This allows us to automate processes we use in different projects that are coming from different vendors in different countries. Apart from gathering the information, we are template invoicing. The robots take invoice information and post the results into our SAP and other systems. It is much faster than our original process. This has been implemented in Spain, and we are now releasing it to other countries, one by one.

Using this solution is not just about saving time or reducing the number of staff. It is also for improving stability and decreasing the number of errors that we have. In Spain, where we were implementing a pilot project for purchase orders, we saw a decrease in the number of human errors. When they started, there was an error rate of ten percent. After three months in production, the error rate decreased to five or six percent, and after six months it was one or two percent. Also, even though there was still an error rate, it was consistent and it is something that we can account for.

In terms of money savings, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

The most valuable feature is Studio, which allows developers to specifically focus on development. Orchestrator allows us to connect those things together.

I would like to see some use cases and additional information on the process mining and the OCR features that are being released. There are other products that offer OCR features, and at this point, it is hard for me to determine the benefit of using UiPath for OCR rather than integrating it with another solution. This is not just from a business perspective, but from a development perspective as well. For example, I would like to see how you can connect UiPath to all of the applications to collect the logs and the data. Then, how we can put that information together. If there is a thirty-minute delay then how do you identify whether it was because the person went to lunch, or rather that they were working and thinking.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a three.

The stability of this solution really depends on the developer or the execution. It's not always a UiPath issue. If the process is unstable, it's the issue of the business case and not the actual execution of any development. So it really depends on how you use the platform and how you understand it. We will use a more stable technology, such as alerting through an API, before we go to the UI path.

We have about one hundred licenses for production and four Orchestrators.

Both customer support and technical support are really good. Whenever I have a question, whether it is business, Studio, or Orchestrator related, I usually get an answer. We have our own customer success manager who helps us on a daily basis. I also have connections to the lab and to the production team so I can ask questions there as well.

At this company, they did not have an RPA solution in place before this one.

Personally, I have also used Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. From my perspective, it's about how you use the tool, and not about which tool you use. Personally, I don't like Automation Anywhere, and I used to be a Blue Prism guy.

I feel that Blue Prism is easier to learn because you can do things in terms of processes or objects. Logically, it is easier. In UiPath there are more options, but it's also harder to learn because you need to create a logical structure on your own. It doesn't show you how to do that in an easier way. UiPath has more connections and more inbuilt stuff than Blue Prism, but on the other hand, the navigation between the types of variables is slightly different. It's not a disadvantage, but it is something that takes time to learn.

I find that Automation Anywhere is not that user-friendly. For example, in Blue Prism you have loops that you can put a component into. In Automation Anywhere, you have to copy all of those stages, one-by-one. You cannot create a loop, which is basic.

We have not been tracking ROI yet, although we are working on it. It is difficult to calculate because to collect the information for each process it requires a logging system. Each project will require a specific logging system so that we can collect the same information to compare and evaluate it. We have to consider our development costs, maintenance costs, licensing costs, etc. At this point, we do not have enough people to work on this, so it is a work in progress.

They ran a selection process here and my understanding is that Blue Prism was not able to provide a free Studio license, unlike the policy they now have in place. This is the reason that UiPath was selected. 

The majority of our use cases are unattended, and that is the way that you should go. We do use attended bots as digital assistants, where you have small automations that are triggered by the users on their own to direct the robot. These are two separate products.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is not to be scared to use it. Play with it as much as possible and see if it brings value. There are different applications that can bring more value in certain cases.

Overall, this is a good solution, but there are always ways to improve a product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Studio, the Orchestrator, and we have attended and unattended robots.

Our primary use case is automating back-office processes from the corporate side. One example is the automation for ticket closure for some of the customer complaints. We also use it to fill information gaps between systems. Instead of having information run through standard APIs, we have it copied over from one system to another.

We run automations in a virtual environment, and the implementation was pretty easy and quick.

We used the Community Edition before purchasing our license. From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one week. We found it to be very easy and very fast. We, as a Contact Center, usually face a lot of problems when we suggest any requirements. When we started with RPA, it took approximately one month for a very complex process to be automated.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It is very easy. You can use the UI, or you can use APIs for the connection. In the end, you can do it.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five, for sure. In two or three weeks, an RPA developer can do everything.

In the Contact Center, the key issue is the handling time. RPA has helped us to decrease our time, and eventually, it will help to decrease the headcount.

For one of our processes, it reduced the time it takes from five minutes to somewhere between forty and fifty seconds. That saves a lot of time.

In terms of eliminating human errors, there has not been much difference because we have very strict processes and strict steps for them, so human error was minimal, to begin with. Our success is in the reduction of time to complete them.

The unattended, back-office robots are the most beneficial feature.

The Form Builder for back-end robots needs to be a web portal instead of a full desktop application. 

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution between three and four. For exception handling, it means that a senior RPA developer has to understand the reasons behind the process. If they have not been exposed to it then it is easier to perform some simple fixes and continue the process.

We have implemented eighteen processes so far, they are they used in several departments. In total, we have approximately four thousand people who are using this solution.

From a scalability point of view, we're not that confident that we can have the robots running twenty-four hours a day with a huge transaction. Being a telecom operator, we have a lot of transactions and the stability of the unattended robots needs some enhancement.

I think that both customer support and technical support are very good. When we have any questions or any issues, we are connected immediately. 

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

We learned about RPA because one of the contractors was working on an RPA PoC at our company, and we were convinced that it could help us a lot. The IT people were invited to see the technology and from there, they decided to implement it with our in-house IT group.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. We used the Community Edition and it is very easy to use. 

We performed the implementation on our own.

We realized ROI in approximately six months. Our cost savings come from savings in agents.

From a cost perspective, unattended robots are better. They run twenty-four hours a day and do not require running on a client machine. The attended robots are not as cost-effective.

We did evaluate one other RPA solution before choosing this one. Our main reasons for choosing UiPath were the price and the ease of development. The Community Edition is very useful, and we are easily able to find RPA developers working in UiPath. This is different than with some of the competing products.

My advice for anybody researching this solution is that it is easy to download and it has a big community. A PoC can be done easily, and you can decide from there whether this solution is suitable.

This is a good solution, but the stability of the unattended robots needs to be improved.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator, and bots.

We are a consulting company that is working with one of our clients to automate back-office accounting processes for a logistics company. There are five people in the core team who are working on the implementation.

We run automations in a virtual environment, but I was not responsible for the implementation.

With respect to how easy it is to automate the company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it four. It's very easy, but it is difficult to explain to our customers who are not as technical. In other words, it is difficult for people who are coming from the business side.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. Without it, I don't think that I could have started the implementation. I completed the developer program just for a general understanding of how everything works, including the Orchestrator and how it all works together. For me, the training was really important. It was very good and I really liked it.

We were working with the Community Edition at first, but from the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one month.

In terms of eliminating human errors, we expect to see this benefit later. Until this point, we haven't touched the processes where there could be human errors. We just started with the really basic ones, which are so easy that people don't make errors there, and neither do the bots. We plan to get to the more complicated processes next.

With respect to saving time, I can say that this solution has helped, but at this point, I don't know by how much.

While we were implementing this solution, we were empowering people. This solution changed the way people are working because it is so open and everybody can take part in it. It caused them to think about their processes in a different way, with automation in mind and possibilities for the future. Now, when they're having strategy meetings, they have dedicated time slots where they're just talking about processes that could be automated, so the whole mindset is changing now.

The most valuable feature in Orchestrator is that it stores the credentials in a safe way. Our clients were afraid that the credentials would be stored where somebody could see them and being able to schedule bots with the credentials available is very important for them. 

We would like to see Studio made a little easier so that our non-technical customers can also implement the bots. For example, some of the features from the upcoming Studio X should be put into the original Studio, as well.

I have trouble understanding the machine learning and AI components, so I would like it to be easier to understand how and what to do with them.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution between three and four. Sometimes there are issues where something is not working, although there are probably times where it happens because we don't know how to use the solution in the best way.

Both the customer support and technical support for this solution are very good.

The technical support has been very helpful. Our team has had many calls with UiPath regarding the virtual machine, which did not work at first. Within two days it was working.

Our clients did not use another RPA solution before this one.

They are undergoing a digital transformation and wanted to give themselves and edge so that the other companies will not get ahead. They just saw the need to change and we told them about RPA and they got very excited. We showed them the first pilot bot and they were ready to implement it.

Our in-house IT department handled the initial setup.

We have seen ROI and performance benefits from using this solution. While I do not have specifics in terms of money or time saved, I think that we could see the benefits after a week. There were processes that the client no longer needed to do, so they had more time available for other things.

For our first customer, we started with Orchestrator, an unattended bot, and a couple of Studio licenses, all of which cost $25,000 USD for the year. It is definitely worth the money.

We had researched Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism, but we didn't look too deeply.

The choice for UiPath was made based on what we read on the Internet, including the Gartner Report. It was very easy to get started after first downloading the Community Edition and then taking the Academy to learn how to do it. It is easy, fast, and the statistics say that it is the best.

Right now, this is a good solution that I would recommend. It is really beneficial for a lot of companies. At the same time, there are things that can improve and they are working on them.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.