UiPath pros and cons

The highest benefit of it is that it's just there, ready to use, and you don't need to start from a blank screen.

Excel automation is extremely reliable. Excel integration is one of the top features that I have been using. We also have a feature called Document Understanding for processing the PDF format of an invoice by a bot. It has the capability to scan an invoice and then pick out the required fields, such as the name of the vendor, the details of the products being sent, or the cost of the product.

The automation Cloud Platform has definitely helped reduce the time it takes to create automation. It brings a lot of things together. It's easy to use for clients and customers. It makes it easy to bring different disciplines together, so I don't need to think about how to reuse my code, or how to explain to the customer, and I don't need to share the processes to be able to release, run, and monitor and to get reports on the results.

We had a cost reduction of approximately 20% in our operations.

It is a very simple tool to work with for anybody. Simplicity is the best in UiPath. It also has the best community support. If we are looking for any solution, we can directly reach out to UiPath at any point in time.

The biggest benefit that we have from UiPath comes from using the API.

The product has reduced the cost of our automation operations.

The artificial intelligence and document understanding features are very good and have been helpful when it comes to processing handwritten or unstructured, especially when there is a high volume and it is repetitive.

At my previous company, in the best scenario, we removed almost 200 hours per month of client usage, making it automated with almost zero errors. So, about 32 employees were freed up from their work per month, and now there are only two. This has enabled employees to focus on higher-value work that involves human-base interaction. This saved the client money and provided a recruitment benefit.

It is a single point of truth. There is no discrepancy or ambiguity. We can go to the leadership team, and say, "This is what it saves us on costs, man-hours, and effort that we used to do manually versus what we are doing now using the bots."

From a developer's point of view, my biggest struggle with UiPath is debugging.

Sometimes, we do find that the bots misbehave or there are bugs that prevent the bot from executing even when the business cases are completely listed out. It could be that the cloud Orchestrator doesn't send the trigger to the runner systems to start the process because of small internet fluctuation. Sometimes, we find that the processes are killing the execution themselves and going into a halt state without any errors in the program. So, we do see some reliability issues, but these happen once in 20 or 30 instances. They are not on a regular basis. However, when that happens, it does create panic, and we have to immediately rectify it. If they can focus on that, it would be good.

I'm trying not to sound negative about it as I like them a lot, however, the process mining and the process mining features stem further away from the development of the robots and the monitoring. The development, run, and monitoring are really closely knit, or really close together, and then process discovery is starting to get there. It's on its way, however, I don't see that it's as closely connected as the other three parts.

If I can get a little bit more data and a little bit more customization on Orchestrator, that would be really great.

The new features or functionalities that come with UiPath upgrades don't work perfectly in the initial days. Their new releases are not stable. We always find some set of issues. I have to work with the UiPath team for a week or so to resolve the issues, and then I'm able to use it. The stabilization should be there. We expect UiPath to reduce the number of errors before rolling out new features to end-users or customers.

The first area that needs improvement is backward compatibility.

When the Orchestrator got upgraded and UiPath didn't get upgraded, we started getting errors regarding the managed packages; the packages were not getting upgraded.

The Orchestrator is in drastic need of improvement. Three or four years ago, the Orchestrator UI was very simple and comfortable to use but now, they have added so many features that it is difficult for new users to quickly understand it.

When it comes to debugging, there is some improvement needed for UiPath compared to other RPA tools. There are features to edit the workflow or content of the automation file while we are debugging. For example, we have 10,000 lines of code that we have integrated by 10 different users. So, there is one integrated code and you are debugging it. After some time, you might find a line which is not an error. You may have forgotten to remove it or change the value to your desired criteria. It is really a pain to stop the entire debug session and just edit it, then start again at zero. It will do the same steps again just to reach that level or step where you were actually stuck previously. Whereas, in different automation tools, whether you are on the findings step or in-between a debug session, you can actually edit that information. This is good because sometimes the developer also forgets to add or remove certain values in-between a long code. I think this should be improved in UiPath. This should already be in consideration because I have been in touch with UiPath a couple of times because of this.

To provide detailed analysis, there has to be some improvements so we can provide drill-down data to developers showing, "Hey, this has gone wrong." If they could also incorporate that as part of the reports, then it would be very quick to view on the dashboards.