UiPath Platform Reviews

My main use case for this product is process automation. For example, we use UiPath to make quick and easy applications for our internal office use.

It has reduced repetitive tasks. We now have more efficient processes. Manual testing was one of the time-consuming tasks that we used to do. Our testing team used to spend days and nights testing. UiPath has completely boosted the process. For example, previously, if we needed three employees to do a particular manual test, now, because of the automation that is available, we require just one employee. It has saved a lot of time, and it has also enabled us to deliver better-quality products. With automation, less manual work is involved, and the quality of the product that we deliver is very good. We have also been able to automate a lot of tasks, such as compliance tracking.

It's very easy to build automations using UiPath. Most of the things are just drag-and-drop. People with zero to minimal coding knowledge can build applications using UiPath. It's straightforward. One thing that facilitates this is that a lot of in-app guides or inbuilt tutorials are available, which makes UiPath very easy for a beginner who is starting out with UiPath. With such a good knowledge base, it becomes very easy for them to get a grasp of everything and start building applications.

It enables us to implement end-to-end automation. It also improves the employee experience. In software development, especially in the field of testing, there are many repetitive tasks, and they are prone to many manual errors as well. Automation through UiPath boosted employee morale, and it also improved the customer experience. We have been able to deliver better products on time to customers with UiPath.

It's a cloud-based solution, and it has helped to minimize our on-premises footprint.

With the AI functionality, we have been able to identify areas where automation can be implemented. We are trying to identify where process automation can be brought in and efficiency can be improved. The AI functionality is good, but there's a lot of initial work that needs to be done for this. It has enabled us to automate more processes. Within a month, we have been able to automate around 40 to 45 processes that were pending for a long time. It has definitely speeded up the entire process.

It speeds up digital transformation and also reduces the cost of digital transformation. Less manual intervention is needed, and less manpower is needed. It definitely reduces the overall cost for the company. Also, when something is automated, it's very quick. Redundant or repetitive tasks are completely reduced, and a lot of time is saved. So, it definitely saves time and cost.

This digital transformation didn't require expensive or complex application upgrades, or IT application support. Everything was inside UiPath. We just took some additional training from UiPath to get it implemented. Other than that, we did not use anything.

It has reduced a lot of human error. With manual testing, there were a lot of errors. With automation, that has been completely eradicated, and a lot of time and effort has been saved. It has reduced human errors by 100%.

It has improved our customer experience as well. We provide services to our clients or customers. Any human error leads to a delay in delivering the application. With automation, we have completely removed human errors, and we are able to satisfy our customers. It has impacted the retention of our customers.

It has freed up employees' time as well. A task that previously required three or four employees just requires one employee now. We do not spend all our time on a process. Once we implement and start an automation process, everything happens automatically. We can concentrate on other aspects of software development. It has saved 20 hours per week or 4 hours per day. 

It has saved a lot of costs for us in terms of employee reduction. We now need just one employee for a task rather than four employees. So, there are savings in terms of employee salary. We are also able to retain customers better, which has improved our revenue. Overall, about 25% of our cost has been saved. We were losing revenue and customers because they were not satisfied. With UiPath, our efficiency has improved, and the time to market has reduced. 

There are two features that I like a lot in UiPath: one is the Orchestrator option, and the other one is the Studio option. I especially like Orchestrator because it's very insightful for us. It's like a centralized hub to manage and maintain all of our process automation and task-mining. It systematically organizes each and every folder so that it's easy for us whenever we need to know, set, or take something. Studio is where we primarily do most of our designing. It's a very good tool. Most of it is drag-and-drop. These are the two main useful features for us.

The dashboard view could be more visually appealing. Dashboards in any software should stand out with colors, numbers, and other things, but in UiPath, the dashboard is not that visually appealing. The UiPath team could make it more visually appealing for us to get more insights.

Another improvement area is related to product updates. Earlier, we used to get monthly updates about the product, but that has stopped now. If they could bring that back, it'll be very good.

We have recently tried the AI functionality. There is a lot of learning that we need to do with regard to AI. It's good, but it's not as smooth as Orchestrator or Studio. The AI aspect of the product could be better. We're currently working on allowing the AI to automatically detect areas where automation can be brought in and efficiency can be improved. That needs some more refinement. It's currently not straightforward. Sometimes, it just repeats whatever it said previously, so nothing new comes out of it. The AI aspect of the product can be much more refined. Apart from that, I don't have anything else. It's a well-thought-out and complete product. It's very easy to use and easy to understand.

I've been using UiPath for around a year.

It's a cloud-based solution. It's very stable, and we just need to make sure that it's up to date. Personally, I have not seen any bugs, errors, or performance issues with this. We are not using an on-premise model. It's cloud-based. So, the service is always available, and it's always quick. It's very stable, and I have no complaints.

The applications that we develop with UiPath are also very reliable. They don't crash or have any performance issues. They are very stable and reliable.

When we started with UiPath, our main use case was to be able to quickly and easily make applications for internal purposes, but now, we are doing a lot more with UiPath. We are doing compliance, and we are doing AI-related process automation. It's definitely a scalable solution.

It's deployed across multiple departments. Each department has its own RPA functionality and RPA usage. In my department, 20 of us use UiPath, but I'm not sure about its users in other departments. 

Their support team is very knowledgeable. Whatever issues we have, they try to explain them to us in a better way. The SLA or response time is pretty quick. It's 24 hours for us. I have no complaints. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

In addition to the support team that UiPath has, I depend on the user community for all my queries. I see the UiPath Community as the main support tool. It's my go-to space for anything related to UiPath, and I am very satisfied with the quality of the community.

Positive

I am not aware of any other solution that we used to use.

It didn't take a lot of time to implement, which is a very good thing about UiPath. In about two to three weeks, we got the entire setup done. That was very quick.

It's a cloud solution. We have deployed it on AWS. Being a cloud solution, it requires very less maintenance from our side. That's one of the very good things about UiPath. We just need to make sure it's up to date.

We have definitely seen an ROI. Customer satisfaction has improved a lot. We have been able to retain customers better, and we have been able to reduce manual errors by 100%. 

Its pricing is straightforward. There are two editions: one is the community edition and one is the enterprise edition, which is a paid one. The paid edition is priced reasonably.

They charge extra for additional training and implementation, but that should be bundled up with the enterprise edition itself. All in all, it's reasonably priced.

To anyone considering UiPath, I would advise checking out the trial version of UiPath before going on to the actual version. Before you start using UiPath, there are a lot of things you need to get your head around. People who generally use UiPath have zero or minimal coding skills. This is something that you definitely need to know.

You can try out the UiPath Academy as well. They provide certification courses. I have not used UiPath Academy, but I have seen my team using it for the certification program they offer. I have heard that it's very good.

I would rate it a nine out of ten because I have not faced any issues with the product. Whatever we wanted to achieve with this product, we have been able to achieve.

My domain and expertise are in life sciences. In life sciences there is a process called pharmacovigilance, which involves monitoring the effects of medical drugs after they have been licensed for use. I create end-to-end automations, for case processing and full data entry. The customer will store details in an Oracle-based pharmacovigilance platform called Argus, where clinical data from the client and the product are stored. The UiPath bot has to capture the cases from Argus. Once a case has been input into UiPath, a mandatory status check, duplicate search, and case processing have to be done.

It then needs to perform full data entry in Argus. The full data entry consists of more details like patient information, product information, event information, and so on. The bot needs to validate and input those details into Argus and save the case. 

Some days there will be 1k records and on other days, there will be 2k records. On average the bot will process 12k to 13k records.

Pharmacovigilance is a big process. It would take almost 45 minutes for a human to complete a single case. By implementing UiPath robots in the customer's environment, the case processing time has been drastically reduced. The bot processes cases, end-to-end, within 20 to 25 minutes, depending on the case complexity, so that the customer is saving 20 minutes per case. The savings are equivalent to nine or 10 FTEs, which is huge. As a result of those savings, they have requested us to build more bots for them, for other processes.

The most valuable feature in UiPath is the UI interaction with UI Explorer. I have worked with other automation tools and UI Explorer is the standout feature of UiPath. For web-based applications, we can interact with every HTML element, from head to tail. UI Explorer is a valuable addition to UiPath for creating complex, web-based automation.

The AI Computer Vision and Orchestrator are also outstanding features. They make it very easy for developers.

In addition, the introduction of drag-and-drop APIs to UiPath enhances the development processes and decreases the time it takes, as well as the processing time. For example, if you wanted to read an email from Microsoft Outlook using UiPath two years ago, it would take about five steps or activities. Now, with the Graph API within UiPath, you can read an email message from Outlook within a span of five to six seconds, maximum. This API functionality is pretty easy for us to handle.

Along with this, UiPath also introduced Orchestrator access via API. It's not mandatory to log in to Orchestrator to create an asset manually in UiPath. Rather, you can use the Orchestrator API to call a bot process and the assets. This API functionality helps developers to develop components effectively, as well as reduces bot processing time drastically.

I have been into RPA for almost six years and I have worked in the three major tools: UiPath, Automation Anywhere, and Blue Prism. I have been using UiPath for four to five years. I'm an RPA developer and do development for my clients. That includes designing and deploying bots in the clients' environments, and making sure the bots are running well.

It is stable. We are using the 2019 version. The versions are continually upgraded with the latest being the 2021 version. There are frequent updates but the version we are using is stable. We don't have any errors or bot crashes or other unexpected system exceptions during development. The stability is good across all versions.

It's pretty scalable. It can be used across all major providers. If you want to automate Windows, web-based or PDF-based interactions, or do email or Excel automation, you can. We can also do terminal automation, mainframe automation, and Citrix automation. It covers almost every possible scenario for real-time data handling. 

We only have a couple of challenges, when a customer says we need to do this or that and UiPath doesn't have built-in functionality for that. We need to think differently and add some additional .NET components, for example. 

But UiPath is pretty scalable, and we can use it across all technologies for automation.

If you don't find a solution in the Community Forum, you can raise a technical support ticket with UiPath. The support team works 24 hours a day, and we can get a resolution immediately. Both the Community Forum and the technical support play a major role and both help developers.

UiPath also has partners. Cognizant is a high-priority partner and they have their own SLAs for everything. If I raise a ticket regarding UiPath, if something is not working, the response time is very quick and the resolutions they provide are pretty standard. We haven't faced any difficulties in raising a ticket. Everything has met our expectations with respect to the technical support.

Positive

The main thing that could be improved is the cost. I have worked with other tools and the licensing cost of UiPath is slightly higher than the others.

Also, UiPath has a built-in functionality called Computer Vision to extract values from a PDF. If we want to use Computer Vision, UiPath has one drawback. The cost is based on how many documents we are using Computer Vision on. That makes it difficult to estimate ROI. Computer Vision has a dynamic cost. To propose a project to a client, a project that includes Computer Vision, we need to have some kind of standard cost so that they can calculate the ROI effectively. Computer Vision should not be based on usage.

This is one of the main drawbacks that I have seen in real-life situations, when quoting a price for a client. If UiPath improved in this area, they might have many more customers who want to automate PDF interactions based on Computer Vision, because it has huge scope.

The advantage of using UiPath over Automation Anywhere is the UI interaction. Automation Anywhere doesn't have a specialized feature like UI Explorer, or any other options to click on an image or interact with UI elements. Automation Anywhere has a Capture command and we have to work with that one command to interact with all the UI-based elements. But it's completely different in UiPath. UI Explorer enables multiple clicks and interactive activities. You can mimic the HTML per your project's needs. You can't work in the same way in Automation Anywhere. With respect to web-based automation, UiPath stands tall. AA has limited functionality.

The disadvantage of UiPath is in the PDF interaction. Automation Anywhere has a bot called IQ Bot, which is included in the licensing of Automation Anywhere. It's pretty easy to train it for a PDF document within the span of a few seconds. UiPath's Computer Vision has the same functionality as IQ Bot, but Computer Vision is pretty costly.

Other than that, Automation Anywhere is cloud-hosted and it has multiple ways for a developer to code. If you want to code RPA, or you want to code in a flow-based manner, you can do so with Automation Anywhere. But UiPath has only one mode, a flow-based automation. UiPath doesn't have code-based automation.

From the developer's point of view, if you have a code-based structure then what AA offers is as good as UiPath. 

A major advantage of UiPath is that since it is a .NET-based application, you can use all the methods and the properties that are available in .NET. You don't have that functionality in Automation Anywhere. If you want to read or manipulate a string, you need to use separate activities in Automation Anywhere, but with UiPath you can use the built-in .NET methods to read a string in a single line. The complexity of the code is smaller in UiPath.  

Because I have worked in all the major RPA tools, I can say confidently that UiPath is very developer-friendly. If you are coming from a non-technical background, or you don't know coding, they have a separate portal for you to develop in, called StudioX. It's a low-code platform, a "citizen-developer" platform. Anyone who wants to use UiPath can use it without any background.

From the development, design, and testing points of view, I rate UiPath higher than other RPA tools for automation. Go directly to UiPath, rather than trying all the other tools. UiPath is number-one for development and testing.

It is mandatory in our company to use the UiPath Academy to do RPA certification. Almost everyone has completed advanced professional certification in UiPath. The Academy covers every topic extensively, as far as what developers need. I don't come from an IT background but I learned it. UiPath teaches everything from scratch. With a little bit of coding knowledge, it's very easy to learn development using the Academy portal. The major advantage is that, since it is a video-based series, you get a clear idea of the modern-day functionality. They explain everything with an example and they give you use cases for practice. 

If you want to be an architect, they have a course for that. If you want a developer diploma, they have a course for that. And if you want to learn a specific topic, like deployment or testing, they have courses for them.

For anyone with experience in another technology who wants to learn UiPath, or wants to do RPA projects, it's a matter of 10 to 15 days to go through all the videos and you can start working. That's a big advantage of UiPath. The Academy makes learning easy.

They also have a Community Forum. If we have any doubt, we can interact with other developers around the globe. It's very interactive and we can learn what things are intended to do. About 90 percent of the time, you can find a solution using the forum.

Other than the Computer Vision cost model, the features of UiPath are pretty awesome to use. As a developer, there aren't any drawbacks or difficulties when using UiPath.

I work for an international consulting firm and we work with enterprise clients. Our job is to provide them with RPA solutions and ultimately, we would like to provide opportunities for them to have every kind of automation.

We began with use cases in accounting and controlling departments, after which we moved to automate banking, legal, and IT processes. Nowadays, we are reaching out to HR to help automate some of their minor processes.

To this point, our implementations have been in an on-premises environment. At this time, we are in the process of migrating our on-premises UiPath environment to the cloud.

When I joined the RPA team, coming from a DevOps position, I assisted them with IT-related tasks such as implementation, packages, etc. I went on to become an RPA developer and began working on business sue cases. As part of my duties, I search for opportunities, help find internal clients, and improve governance inside of our enterprise. I am involved in all of the steps in the framework.

Our first automation was an on-demand service, used internally for us. We deployed an on-premises orchestrator, also used on an on-demand basis. Once we got this experience, we started building other solutions.

We deployed an internal chatbot named Alex, and our employees can ask whatever they want. For example, you can ask Alex what your salary is. Depending on your privileges, you will get more or less information. Everything is done using robots.

UiPath makes it easy to develop automations and this is the main selling point. I can speak with a client and in the meantime, I can prepare a demo on the fly that captures the client's thoughts at the moment. What it means is that as I'm speaking with you, I can start preparing a small demo. I find the product fun to work with.

An example of how this has improved our business is when dealing with internal clients. For example, if an internal business manager wants to use BI and needs to create a report with a specific set of data, they traditionally had to reach out to the IT department. IT will first examine the needs, then discuss how it is developed. It may need a database instance or other tools, for example. Traditionally, this is how it is done. 

One of the problems with this approach is that our headquarters is in France, and they are used to having internal discussions about everything. For a use case like this, they will consider all of the needs and other points before making a decision. It can be very time-consuming.

However, if we consider the same use case, using UiPath, we are able to create reports on the fly. We can be right in the same meetings with the IT people when we do it. 

If you're from a legal department and your solutions involve HR, as well as other company departments, I can automate several processes in four hours. Then, all of the processes can run during the night. It is an amazing product in this regard.

As we automate processes, another benefit that we receive is the ability to generate internal reports comparing departments and processes. We give these reports to the heads of the company to provide intelligence, helping them to better understand the organization. 

As an example of somewhere that UiPath has saved money, I implemented automation to replace a tool that one of our clients has. It is an internal timesheet tool and although the company uses SAP and SAP HANA for these tasks, this tool handles aspects that are specific to Spain. It is a small tool but is needed for a particular purpose.

The initial development of the tool, handled by an external third party, cost €20,000 (approx $22,500 USD) and there is a monthly maintenance fee of €700 (approx $790 USD). We discussed replacing the tool with our client but they were hesitant to change because they already had the solution.

We offered to replace their tool for free because we are trying to internalize processes, so there was also a benefit for us. We explained that once it was completed, we would be responsible for performing the calculations and analysis to ensure that the replacement was working properly. They agreed and it took me only one day to complete the automation. Now, it takes only a single button click from beginning to end. At the end of the day, it brings in all of the jobs. This automation saves them €700 per month in maintenance costs and it would have saved the initial development and deployment fee had it been implemented using UiPath from the beginning.

It was very easy to see that they were wasting money, and this is happening in a lot of places. We proposed to them that for these tasks, we would charge €600 (approx $675 USD) per day as consultants, and then for maintenance, we would bill them a monthly fee equivalent to 16% of the cost of the robot. For the bot used to replace their tool, it took me one day to develop and two days to plan and design it. The initial cost would have been €1,800 (approx $2,000 USD) and the monthly maintenance fee €200. They switched from their tool to the robot, since it was only costing €200 instead of €700 per month.

After they switched, they realized the power of automation and have since asked us about automating more of their internal processes. They have presented a storm of ideas, and the potential for savings is amazing.

You cannot compare whatever you do with a robot to a traditional software tool, package, or service. This example of the tool that we replaced is only one use case, and there are others but they are all more complex. Overall, it saves a lot in terms of time and cost.

The most valuable feature is the forum, where there is lots of help available. For me, UiPath is the perfect partner to converse with. I have brought four or five topics to the forum and every time that I was stuck, the problem had already been registered. I see the comments from the internal team and they are always tuned to the issue, always looking to fix small problems that have been found. We find that after they have been pointed out, fixes come included in the next release.

The interface is intuitive and very user-friendly.

The UiPath Academy provides courses to help you get up to speed with the solution, and to my thinking, it is crucial to start with this training. Developing a report in UiPath and other RPA solutions is very different from the traditional way to learn. When I studied in university, software development was focused on data structures and optimization. This varies a little bit depending on the programming language but more or less, this is what every framework follows. It's logical and we are always trying to optimize our processes. With RPA, it's different because you base your process on the logic, and then tweak with the tools. It's the difference between painting a picture and shaping an object. For me, the training was crucial and it helps a lot to learn right from the beginning.

The basic course took me four or five days to complete. Just with that, it was enough to become familiar with the framework and quite enough to start making your own automations.

I'm always looking for new courses from the Academy. For example, I completed the architect training, as well as the course on governance. The academy is well structured and very useful, although not mandatory because you can start by yourself. That said, I definitely recommend it.

We use the AI-enhanced document understanding capabilities, as well as other related features.

UiPath is based on the .NET framework, which means that we are currently limited to Windows deployment.

The update process has resulted in several small issues for us. Sometimes when you update, there are several lines that are not included in the package. This kind of technical error, even though it's small, has to improve. I understand that they are trying to implement all of the services that they can, and this kind of thing happens when you expand your model. The same thing happens to us. That said, it needs to improve.

The .NET formwork is well known, as is C#, but it requires a lot of computing power. Everything is JSON-based, so it always has to preload all of the information. This means that there is overhead in the performance and if it were only a simple query, it might be slower with UiPath. However, with a cloud-based environment, we don't have to worry about this.

When it comes to migration, it's always painful. We have found several issues that require changes to be made from a coding perspective. In our current migration from on-premises to the cloud, we had a problem that delayed us by approximately a week. However, I don't consider this to be a pain point because it's a normal thing that happens when you try to size up your company by introducing many new services.

From a technical perspective, the migration is straightforward but we haven't completed our migration yet because we have not set up the gateways to access our services.

I have been working with UiPath since 2019, approximately three years ago.

Starting from version 20, UiPath has been very stable. Prior to this, it has not been 100% stable. That said, we have not had any troubles with the platform in general.

The problems that we have encountered were when we tried to upgrade or to migrate by uninstalling and reinstalling the Orchestrator. There were some internal issues where people didn't read the communications that we put out.

Generally speaking, Orchestrator is very well built. We have put a lot of stress on the system and haven't experienced any problems with performance.

Scalability-wise, UiPath is quite good. This is an interesting topic because, in the beginning, I didn't put much thought into scaling. I was used to building solutions, and that's all. UiPath offers special packages that target scaling up. These packages become relevant when you have more than 20 processes.

For example, you can have activities that trigger processes, and you can include one activity inside of another. With these features, you realize that a huge amount of work is already taken care of.

More to how well it scales, they have a very useful package of integration tools.

Personally, I have automated 70 processes and the total for the team is approximately 300. Within the past year, we have delivered more than 200,000 hours of automation.

Since I joined the group, we have brought a lot of RPA clients into the enterprise.

I would rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

The reason for my rating is that I have been waiting since last year for integrations that are coming. With respect to getting support for other things, I have not had any problems.

The support wants to teach us how to build an automation ecosystem inside the enterprise by combining artificial intelligence models, data analysis, and these kinds of things.

During our implementation and afterward, they have given us ideas about how and where things should go. This has been helpful but from my perspective, it is all still a little bit hard to understand. There is a lot of documentation to study. This is, in part, because they are growing and building.

I have done several RPA jobs in telecom when I worked for another company.

We first deployed version 18 of UiPath, and we found the initial setup to be quite straightforward. It was well packaged and easy to install.

The only pain point for us was issues related to implementing the solution inside our ecosystem. It contains VMs, firewalls, and other things that add to the complexity. This, however, belongs to us. From the perspective of UiPath, they gave us a package to install the Orchestrator, and another to install the runtime in every machine that we want it to work with. Things are quite straightforward in this regard.

In our case, we needed a newer version that came with some of our internal tools preinstalled. This is because we used to have access through Citrix. The installation was very easy.

It took approximately a day for each installation and within a week to two weeks, the service was working. There were five of us working on implementation and deployment. Four of us were working on installation and testing, and three people in the team were IT architects.

UiPath has saved us a lot of time. We calculate our benefit by counting hours saved and last year, we saved 200,000 hours. This means that we replaced between 120 and 140 people by using automation. This is our main metric for calculating cost savings.

When we first started with RPA, we compared UiPath with Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. We chose UiPath right at the beginning.

For me, it was a straightforward choice. UiPath has a lot of help available, and they have a lot of tools. The forum, for me, is the winning factor. For now and in the future, UiPath is the product that I will use.

Another factor in our decision was the ability to use the product before purchasing it. Blue Prism had a demo account so they were a little bit open. However, Automation Anywhere wasn't open at all. They wanted us to pay while we learned how to use it. For me, that was the breaking point because UiPath could be used for free and was open from the beginning.

Coming in as a developer, I very much appreciate that the platform and the code are open. They don't keep everything that they are doing a secret. They have their own business model and they provide the tools. They let you play as much with the solution as you want to.

The interface is also more user-friendly than the other products for creating automations. In fact, I didn't use the other tools very much. In total, we evaluated them for two months, although this time included installation, learning how to use the platform, and trying different automations. Ultimately, based on everything, we chose UiPath.

We tried to compare the products while we were creating simple automations and on every point, we found a huge distance between UiPath and the other tools. For example, the interface was much more intuitive than the other two products.

At the time, UiPath wasn't as big as the other two solutions. However, it had a lot of potential for growth. This was another point that my boss took into consideration when making the decision.

Since the beginning, UiPath has been trying to work out a partnership with Google, including the main tools and main services. For us, and from an enterprise perspective, that is very good. We expect UiPath to grow a lot.

If we have a server and a good investment in machines, virtual or physical, then we don't have anything to worry about. 

As I continue my career in RPA, what I understand is that it's the beginning of a new industry. It's like an industrial revolution, but for automation. When we began with use cases in accounting and banking, it was all related to numbers and we were always using structured data. However, today, we are using things like chatbots. We are also expanding into AI use cases and UiPath continues to grow to include new capabilities and functionality.

In the next ten years, I expect there to be a huge demand for automation. This will be in every kind of enterprise, as well as our day-to-day life. One example is the smart house, with implementations for domestic processes.

My advice for anybody who is implementing UiPath is, firstly, not to panic. It is a new way to develop and understand your business model. Second, do not go too fast. Sometimes, the easiest way to develop robots can lead you to forget about your basics and best practices. Third, bring a strong internal framework, including your business model, best practices, and internal documentation.

It's crucial to be able to scale up in the future, so be sure to consider your larger processes at an early stage. Don't look at things in a traditional way. For example, you can use Python for automation, which is a very open framework, but Python doesn't let you do all of the things that you can do with UiPath. You need to follow a more structured coding approach. Essentially, you always have to be organized and try to take things step-by-step. Otherwise, you will have an internal fight between robots in your Orchestrator.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We develop and deploy use cases in the area of the cloud. We have deployed over 100 use cases. Most of our use cases are related to SAP applications, web applications, and mainframe applications.

One use case example is related to mainframe applications. The bot monitors mainframe applications 24/7. If there are any new jobs, they are identified, then the bot changes the status of the job to differentiate it. 

Previously, we are using the 2016 version of Orchestrator, then we upgraded to the 2018 version of Orchestrator. Some clients are deploying the 2020 version. It depends on the client. We suggest using a version back to clients, i.e., the 2019 version. 

We automate retail, sales, and agricultural services.

There are a bunch of candidates being monitored 24x7. Automation Cloud monitors these jobs, and whenever new docs come into the application, it will then change the status manually based upon certain conditions. Once we deploy the automation into the production, our manpower has been reduced so there are only one or two people needed for the backup. The rest will be taken care of by the automation itself. So, there has been a drastic reduction in our workforce.

We schedule different jobs using Orchestrator only. We have a separate team who takes care of jobs that we apply in Orchestrator. So, if there are any failures, it will automatically send email alerts to us. 

Within Orchestrator, there is a tab where we can restrict roles from the admin level to the user level. Developers give only access to the jobs. Whereas, admins have a roles option to restrict access.

There are still some areas that need improvements. Currently, the tool is not 100 percent accurate with hand written notes and image based automation. It is also tedious using it with Word applications. 

We are doing automation to take care of all our processes, but we still need support people 24/7 to monitor these jobs. So, human intervention is still there. We have two people monitoring these automations 24/7 because there are still some challenges with the automation.

I have been working with it for two and a half years.

When new bots are developed, we definitely see some errors in the first few days, which are usually connector issues. Once the bot is moved to production and has a lot of enhancements and patches to the automations, we make sure that the automation is running smoothly. So, during the initial stages, it won't be very stable, but after a few enhancements to adjust to the automation as time goes, then it will become stable.

Once we deploy and release the automation into production, we will monitor production to see if there are any new challenges, different scenarios, or bugs that we need to fix. We have monitored the automation after deployment for around six to seven months, and the automation went smoothly without any issues. Because the automation is performing pretty well, we have deployed it to more of our workforce and their different jobs.

We have separate, dedicated test data in three different environments. Orchestrator has a database and email server, so everything is in Orchestrator. Apart from the servers, products, and services, everything has a separate operations team, which has eight to 10 members, who take care of everything.

Previously, they used on-premises services for the bots. Then, they asked us to migrate more than 20 bots from on-premises to our AWS environment. So, we have created a dedicated AWS environment for them.

The deployment process goes this way: 

1. Developers develop the use case in a development environment. 
2. Once that is done, then they will move the code to the non-cloud environment.
3. They will test the code if the automation is running fine or not. If automation is running fine, they will show the data which is running fine as a code to the client. 
4. Once they have the desired output, then we will move to the production environment. 
5. The operations team will then deploy that process. 

The first time, it is a bit tricky. Going to production, it will take around 20 to 30 minutes to deploy the first time. If there is already existing automation, we only need a patch to implement it in production, then it will take roughly five to 10 minutes to apply.

The process of testing and deploying code takes roughly one to four nights maximum.

For deploying UiPath, we need at least three to four RPA developers. In general, one person can deploy at any time. The other two to three people are just there on support calls. 

Post-production, we have an operations team of eight to 10 members who take care of the automation.

There are some automations that save us thousands of hours monthly. These are automations that we run 24/7 as well as some automations that we run every five minutes for installing backups. Depending upon the amount of time the automation is standing, we will manage the capabilities of the server. 

To some extent, it has reduced the operations:

1. The automation is sending an email whenever there will be an error. Automatically, it is not going to the user. The user just needs to verify their emails. 
2. Whenever an error is noticed in the code, the automation will fit the address and email the operations team members. 

In these ways, it has helped to reduce operation costs, but not completely.

There are three types of licenses: unattended, attended, and developer.

We also use Automation Anywhere (version 10) and Blue Prism automation tools, but I think most clients prefer UiPath. There are more activities available in UiPath versus the Automation Anywhere version that we use. For example, UiPath has database-related activities, but Automation Anywhere, version 10, does not have this feature. I have tried using mainframe appliances in UiPath and Automation Anywhere, and I found that UiPath is more flexible and has more options available.

The solution is single sign-on, so the authentication is done for us, because it is difficult to remember all our passwords.

We have a ServiceNow ticketing tool for reporting issues related to UiPath.

UiPath is very good for developing web-based applications, especially for SAP and the web. For these two applications, you can go with UiPath without any doubts.

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).

Our communications company intends to use UiPath and AI to determine the best fit and time for commercials based on the customer's usage and payment for the spot. We haven't fully deployed AI, yet. It's becoming more critical to leadership, but we're still doing testing and researching

Our goal with AI is to significantly reduce the manual effort needed to determine where to place ads. We don't have enough human resources to place spots around the clock, so we want UiPath to fill in the gaps by augmenting existing staff without hiring people.

Our leaders and stakeholders are pleased with the RPA results and want to expand our usage. We're still waiting to implement AI. 

Orchestrator is the most valuable feature.

UiPath could improve on-prem availability. I would like to see a load-testing feature, but that's coming.

We have been using UiPath for about three years.

We've never had any issues with stability. 

We just keep adding bots and have not encountered any problems expanding.

I rate UiPath customer service nine out of 10. Overall, it's been great, but in a handful of cases, we've dealt with someone at support whose ability wasn't quite where we wanted it to be.

Positive

We previously used Pega, but our leaders decided to switch to UiPath 

I can't quantify the amount of time we've saved with UiPath, but we've reduced our headcount by about 10 percent. We're not laying people off, but we can backfill employee positions with automation as they leave.

UiPath is perceived as more expensive, but it's pretty close when you break down the licensing model and look at how much competitors charge per connection. We've done the analysis.  

I rate UiPath nine out of 10 because we can't use the cloud stuff yet. If we were on the cloud, I would give it a perfect 10.

Oracle has three broad categories: HCM, PPM, and finance. I have used UiPath to automate mainframe applications. I have automated all types of automation, including ServiceNow processes, PDFs, APIs, and web-based automation.

UiPath has a large number of Java and Python developers. Its modularization of packages for different types of activities and automation is very well done. UiPath also collects suggestions from end users and developers, such as those using the free UiPath software. In fact, UiPath does not release its enterprise edition directly; instead, it releases a free edition for developers to use and provide feedback on the forums. This gives UiPath a significant advantage. Additionally, UiPath has made its tool flexible by building it on the .NET framework but allowing users to also use Java and Python. This gives UiPath another advantage over other tools. I am not sure if other tools offer this type of functionality, but I know that UiPath does because I have used it for a long time.

It can connect systems that don't communicate with each other, enabling us to share data between systems using bots, which is important in the healthcare industry.

The application that was built for our organization is not capable of handling millions of users because it is very old. We must consider the Citrix application, the mainframe applications, and the desktop applications, which are also old. They were not designed to handle millions of customers. For example, CVS Pharmacy has millions of people using its applications on a regular basis. Therefore, we cannot expose that application to customers. We need to build a new client-facing application, but we cannot discard our existing application, which has been in our organization for many years. UiPath helps our applications communicate which improves our patient experience.

It helps our staff easily share data between systems by saving the information in Excel or CSV files and connecting the files to new applications.

We use UiPath to consolidate patient data from multiple sources into a single dashboard, which helps our doctors keep track of patient histories in one place.

The single dashboard helps our patients a lot because we save patient information in the same way for all hospitals including doctors, nurses, and medicines. This means that if we need a doctor nearby, want to change doctors, or are moving to a new city and need medical help, our data can help us find the right resources.

UiPath automation has helped our staff save time, especially for invoicing insurance policies in healthcare organizations. UiPath automation has saved millions of dollars and thousands of hours by simplifying the process in both the healthcare and telecommunications industries.

UiPath has streamlined tasks for our healthcare staff, especially data viewing, enabling them to focus on higher-value activities.

We use UiPath's AI and machine learning capabilities to understand documents. The machine learning process has significantly improved the accuracy of the bot's ability to read data from PDF files.

In 2019, UiPath introduced Computer Vision activities for Citrix applications. This was a major turning point for the company, and the functionality was very useful; I had not seen it in any other tools.

The OCR engine is a valuable feature. 

UiPath should lower its prices because many other RPA tools have reduced their prices, and Microsoft is a major competitor because it offers RPA services to its customers.

I have been using UiPath for over five years.

UiPath is generally stable, but there are bugs in UiPath Studio that require fixing or restarting the application.

UiPath is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I previously used Blue Prism automation, but at the time, the functionality was limited and there were not many features.

The initial deployment is straightforward. We have some design methods. The dispatcher will handle input, the performer will perform the tasks. All processes will be transactional: our first module will create the transaction, the second will execute it, and the third will generate a report.

We use the CI/CD pipeline to deploy our software. After the software passes UAT testing, we need approval from the technical team before deploying it to production.

The implementation was completed in-house.

UiPath is expensive. Automation Anywhere is much cheaper, and it does not have the same AI and machine learning capabilities or features. However, for some industry cases, such as document understanding and computer vision, these features are not required.

I evaluated Automation Anywhere, which was not mature at the time but is now. I also evaluated Power Automate, which has the best price of all RPA tools and is capturing a large market share due to Microsoft's bundles and integrations.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten.

We have thousands of people across the organization using the automation.

UiPath itself doesn't require maintenance but the infrastructure does at times.

UiPath offers a 60 to 90 day trial of its features so that users can try the solution before buying. We can also negotiate with UiPath sales to ensure that we see a return on our automation investment within the first year.

We typically solve for any use cases that falls under different business functions within our company. That includes finance, supply chains, services, IT by itself, and a little bit of engineering.

UiPath has improved the way our organization functions. The flexibility with which the business processes get changed is great.

A lot of times we know the method of operation, however, certainly it'll not be the same after a few months, a few years, or longer. Our dependent script or whatever is in place (that is dependent on that business process) has to be adjusted. The flexibility with this tool has enabled us to adjust those workflows quickly and deploy them so that our business can continue using those applications or the workflows that we’ve been using before, even after changes to the underlying system.

The most valuable aspect has been the workflows. They have helped to deal with legacy applications. We have a lot of legacy applications in place, which we cannot get rid of. The processes around these legacy applications are something that cannot be automated in a typical way. The RPA is helping us to automate the business processes that have to work with legacy applications.

The ease of building automation using the solution is great as it is a low-code solution.

I'm able to create workflows. By the time I'm familiar with one process, I'll be able to automate the next one. This is the case especially with tools like task capture; I'm just working through the process. In the end, it will be a skeleton workflow and it can be used for deployment once we are done with the cleaning. It has reduced the development life cycle by about 30%. It’s done this by making use of the features that are enabled by task capture and certain other features within the Studio.

Overall, we’ve seen the solution has saved costs. That is our value realization.

Our first target metric is to bring up the number of processes that we can save. We have a formula to convert inter-dollar values in terms of the user experience we are benefitting from. That’s the user experience that is enabled by automation. Those are direct savings which can be calculated by multiplying the number of dollars that we have spent for one resource per hour. Indirect monetary benefits can also be calculated by looking into the user experience factors and adding them when we do the value realization. In the last four years, we would've saved $3 million.

The human error rate has been reduced. Initially, when we targeted some of the business use cases, they were straightforward. They were linear in nature and there the accuracy had the upper hand 99.9% of the time. The reason is that the process by itself is quite linear. It doesn't have multiple branches or exceptional routes that it has to take to complete a particular transaction. We have good accuracy, however, we have had challenges with the accuracy when the business processes get complex. If there is any human intervention or if the quality of the data is not proper, or if the user errors are low, that is where the accuracy rate used to be low. It's better now.

Due to the fact that all these are role-based bots, if there is something that is getting changed, the bot will fail. Down the line, I can see that, for linear processes, accuracy will be great. However, when it comes to some of the complex processes, that is where we have challenges that we are facing with accuracy and we are continuously fine-tuning the process in such a way so that the accuracy can get better. It's great we can continuously tweak.

The solution does free up employee time and allows for the employees to focus on higher-value work. We have a lot of examples within our organizations where they have to deal with some kind of manually intensive task, such as just reading something from the document and putting that into the financial system.

We normally take up the customization portion that comes directly from customers. Those kinds of customizations have to be updated back into the financial system in order to make sure that they are appropriate. These updates take a while as they have to do with talking to the customer, understanding what changes are needed for a given order, or based on specific correspondence from the customers. With automation, employees can focus on talking to the customer to understand what changes they have to incorporate. And they can offload all the data entry tasks to a robot. This way, they can focus on how they can engage more with users to understand the pain points faced by the customer rather than spending time taking all those inputs and then doing the data entry job. They can be more client-facing.

I’m not sure exactly how much time is saved with automation. I could say that we have around 150 purchase processes that we have automated. We don't trace back how it has replaced a team or member of a team. We always go with the number of hours saved. We go the route of checking and saying “okay, so we have done this, but it needs a constant involvement from them in order to make sure that someone is owning the process.” We still own only the work.

We have started to use the solution's AI functionality in our automation. We started it recently and we have finished the proof of concept on document understanding, which involves AI, of course.

In terms of AI automation, we will be leveraging this tool for all business functions. There is no limit with any of the business folk that we talk to. Whatever the process is, as long as we feel that it is feasible to automate, and there is a value in automating it,  or as long as we feel that we are automating the right processes, we will just take that up into our pipeline.

AI does help us handle complex and involved processes. We include a lot of use cases where the sole core RPA capability would not suffice as a purely role-based automation. We often encounter a lot of use cases where they say, "Hey, this is something where there is no logic in doing it." If there’s analysis or natural language processing, et cetera, we are making use of AI. However, the process isn’t in use yet. We’re just starting.

We have used UiPath’s Academy courses and we are also encouraging our implementation partners to refer to those materials so that they can be approved.

It’s kept us up to speed with the solution. We refer to the Academy daily. Of course, we get help from UiPath whenever we face any hiccups; we normally ask them questions and they're able to sort it out for us. That said, the materials are great for trying to sort out issues or problems on our own.

It's been four years of practice and we've matured with the traditional RPA candidates. We have a strong foundation with what we have showcased to our business folks, and we are good with the healthy background that we are building. However, when it comes to the roadmap of what's next, that is where we are not clear. While we get the concepts, bringing them to reality is looking to be quite a challenge. We are unsure as to if UiPath can actually bring our vision to life.

UiPath is very clear in defining items such as this is what the high automation needs, this is what the process planning needs. We are getting clarity into those concepts and we are able to explain that and take that back into leadership to get other approvals. They are able to understand what UiPath is talking about within these different concepts. Really, it's just figuring out whether we have the right arrangement at this point and if UiPath can get us there.

I've been using the solution for four years.

I'm impressed with the version that we have today. 2019.10 is a version that is quite stable, compared to how we did with 2018. A lot of pieces that are enabled as part of the new version, 2019, are stabilized. We have zero downtime with the tool.

Today, ith X number of bots, if we want to reuse the same solution, and if there is an appetite for consuming those kinds of robotic solutions, of course, buying more bots is going to solve the problem.

If you think in terms of scaling this platform by itself or the other business functions, that is where the discovery piece will come into play. We have to constantly talk to businesses to understand where the opportunities are to scale in the correct manner.

Scalability is possible in terms of reusing existing automations. It's related to the number of bots that we are going to purchase. When it comes to the number of business processes that we are automating, during the discovery process, twe have to engage with our customers and constantly follow up with them. When we understand more about how they're doing business, we're able to locate the kinds of tools that are going to help them.

Currently, we have eight bots in production and 150 processes are automated. I’m not sure how many users are actually on UiPath currently.

We always follow up with our business to build our pipeline. That goes hand in hand with the implementation. We off-load all automation ideas and requirements to the pipeline, to our implementation partners, so that they will be able to implement our vision.

Traditional support for the RPA is great. In terms of the help that we are getting, if we end up with some issues, running operational issues, it could be better if they can propose some fixes. It's not that automation is going to solve every other problem that the underlying system is having. However, we expect some kind of expertise from the tech support when we face issues that are related to the system. We need to understand if there's an ERP error, if it has to do with the underlying system, or if automation has to solve the issue. Often, technical support will say "Okay, so this is your error, go and solve it." Yet, due to the fact that support has seen more issues like this, they should have more insights and they need to be able to share those inputs in a way that is going to help us.

While I didn't use a different solution previously, the finance team has used Blue Prism before. They implemented Blue Prism and they engaged Blue Prism to automate the processes that they have added for automation. Now, we have aligned on a single platform. It is UiPath now, however, they initially had around 50 processes that they automated using Blue Prism.

We proposed UiPath as the one solution based on Gartner ratings.

The initial setup was quite straightforward as we understand how RPA works and we understand how UiPath is going to help, how UiPath is a tool to help us to automate things. It's quite straightforward in terms of that. Whenever we are doing some kind of initiative, like document understanding or data capture, it is quite straightforward.

However, with process planning, we didn't understand the documentation right away. That is where we used to get help from UiPath.

The pricing was great at the start, and so, down the line, we have been enhancing all these features. We are seeing that, as we are looking for opportunities to grow, the number of robots that we need to purchase and the software cost is going to go up.

UiPath has increased the cost. We feel that it's good, however, based on all the new features, which we are pursuing. That said, we expect that whatever robots that we have purchased or whatever the standard platform that we have from UiPath should continue with the pricing that they had earlier.

There will be an offset, however, when it comes to the existing platform like Orchestrator or robots, and we are expecting that the margin should be less.

Back in 2017, we evaluated three to four products. Blue Prism was already used by the finance team, however, we evaluated WorkFusion, UiPath, and Automation Anywhere.

Of those other three, we evaluated WorkFusion and UiPath extensively.

The two reasons that we went with UiPath were, one, the learning curve, and, two, the community edition of UiPath, which had everything we needed to dig into the solution. Whereas with the other companies, there wasn't that option. With Blue Prism, for example, we had to buy a license in order to check whether the tool was going to work for us. In 2017, we were not sure whether this was going to work or not. At that stage, UiPath was the only company that gave us the entire set of tools to try and it worked really well.

We are customers and end-users.

While we're using the on-premises deployment, we are open to moving to the cloud. There are a lot of cloud solutions that we already use in our organization. However, with UiPath, we have stayed on-prem out of concern for security. We don't have clarity on if a cloud solution is going to work securely.

The other concern is around how we are augmenting the capabilities of core RPA. We know that process mining is going to help us, however, whether process mining is already added into the RPA, do we have any solid use cases that we can start with.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We have several use cases. We're a telecommunications company. We use it for anything from order entry, design, activation, and interactions with technicians within our field. We really have an end-to-end solution.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator, and unattended bots.

It is deployed on-premise but on our own cloud.

We had a long-time situation where we were sending technicians to the fields unnecessarily, because they couldn't install the service. So, we worked through a process to wake up devices. We used RPA to implement it. 

With downsizing, we have been able to automate a lot of this space, so we can downsize and still function as a company.

Capitalize on the unattended automation, as there are a lot of different methods to evoke and schedule it. You can email it, trigger it via API bots or Orchestrator. There are a lot of different methods you can use. We don't really do a whole lot of attended. Not that we wouldn't at some point, but unattended is nice because it's out of sight and out of mind. Set it up and let it go.

We are the first company to bring UiPath Academy in-house on the 30th of September. When we signed our licensing agreement, we added it in our own LMS. So, we have that connection and everything else. We love it. We've implemented all of their modules: RPA Starter, all three of the development courses, Solution Architect, Business Analyst, and Build a Bot. It's super exciting. It's one of the best things that we've done. I would rate it a five out of five.

We now have a functionality that is being released for web forms. It's more for attended. I would like to have these web forms exposed in Orchestrator to be able to trigger a bot externally. I know we have partners that provide similar functionality. I would like to have that same functionality where you could deploy a form, but instead of having it pop up on somebody's desktop, they could go through a URL through Orchestrator and trigger the bots via a web interface. This is instead of having to be tied down to an attended bot.

For some of the Insights stuff, we have found that you have to be flexible on measuring your ROI. You have to be able to customize some of that because it's not as cut and dry as you think it is. 

I would look for the audits on the back-end. Performance-wise, make sure that it is still performing. 

I would rate the stability as a four (out of five), but some of it could have been us too. 

An overabundance of logging that we created crashed the SQL Server. We had to adjust and restructure the way we were doing all of our logging to prevent that from happening again. Ever since then, it has pretty much been fine. 

We have had issues with upgrades. However, from a normal day-to-day functionality perspective, it is pretty stable.

Right now, we have about 150 developers. Then, we have engineers and process analysts.

We have 400 automations on average and 1000 in the pipeline.

It's been fantastic. It doesn't matter what time of day or anything else. We get top-notch service.

It has been about our contacts and support team. They look at us, and say, "You guys want to do what?" Then, they stand behind us and help us get it done.

We had merging companies coming together with a lot of integration going on. With integration, there are multiple teams, processes, and systems. To keep up for our reduced expenses, we had to do it. This was another tool in the toolbox for us: automation.

It took us eight weeks from initial purchase to the first bot to be put into production. It took about two weeks for assessment and documentation, then another six weeks to develop and deploy it. The bot that we developed was complex. It wasn't super simple. We've done simpler, but that time frame was about average for us.

We did the deployment ourselves, but we had the premium support. So, we did have some support from UiPath. However, everything that we did, we did on our own.

ROI was almost instant. We measured everything from deployment. We measured our successes. We do audits once a month. ROI was pretty much from deployment. We don't audit anything in the first 30 days because there is a lot of settling in, some bumps, and, "Oh, we missed this step." For the most part, within 30 days, we were realizing and managing expectations on benefits.

We're really only measuring handling time right now, which is defined by our business clients. They define what handling time we are trying to define, then the measure of success. That's what we measure ourselves on.

We're probably in the tens of thousands of hours that we have saved, easily.

Because we have so many agents, that's why we went unattended. Attended was very expensive for us because it's a per person license. Where we can take entire workflows, do the triggering and scheduling, etc. We never have to have any human interaction with unattended.

We have a cost model for operating expense savings. It is usually about $100,000 to $125,000 and takes us six weeks to develop and implement. That's development, testing, and implementation. We do code reviews on everything. That does not include all the documentation, assessment, etc.

We just signed a very large perpetual agreement. So, we had 125 Studios and 1200 unattended licenses. We paid $3.7 million. Then, we paid maintenance costs for the next three years, which was 15 percent of that.

We evaluated Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, Pega, and UiPath.

Scalability was probably the number one that we went with UiPath. Scalability, the ease of use of the software, and the existing functionality that was there were the main reasons. There is a lot more out-of-the-box in terms of embedded functions that were there at the time when we did our analysis. It seemed like UiPath was really on the cutting edge. They were more proactively implementing good features, where others that we were talking with seemed like they were behind in that perspective. 

We'd rather stay on the cutting edge with technology instead of having to wait for our partner to get caught up.

Obviously, there are cheaper options than UiPath.

I'm really excited about the new stuff. There is great new stuff. We wish we would've had this stuff a year ago because we had to build some of it in-house. We are really excited about the Explorer and process mining.

I would rate the ease of use of the platform for automating our company’s processes as a three and a half to four out of five (where five is the easiest). It depends on the skill set of the developer. If you are a developer with a .NET background, then it will be a lot easier for more of the customization. For the technology overall, it is easy to automate our processes.

We run our automations in the virtual environments, like Citrix. We struggled a bit with Citrix at first, because our infrastructure and systems are somewhat antiquated.

Nobody is perfect. I would rate UiPath as a nine (out of 10).