UiPath Reviews

We did AP automation. We started with AP invoice automation first. Then we did a proof of shipment delivery. That was the second concept. After, we expanded to the inputting of contractor timesheets. We moved to publish the metrics on a dashboard and log in to different databases. Slowly, the demand picked up in the last year.

This solution has reduced manual effort on our part. It's removed repetitive tasks which do not bring any value to the company. They have now been eliminated. It's saved maybe 1,000 man-hours every year on the AP side, and maybe on the metric side for a dashboard that we created, we saved 90 hours a month.

The capacity to read the emails and then understand what is out there has been very useful for us. This is extremely useful with the huge volume of transactions that we are taking. We get close to over a thousand invoices in a day. 

I would like it to be more user-friendly.

The one thing that we would really like to see is the licensing. UiPath is selling on a per-bot model. What I find with other companies is they give it as a SaaS solution and that you subscribe to it. UiPath manages how many bots you need, whatever intelligence you're using, and then you give us a total solution. Changing licensing would probably interest us in the long run.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

It is pretty stable. We have not had major issues.

We can scale it up. However, the cost again is a factor. The cost of scaling up is high.

I have not been involved with technical support. Our team would talk to UiPath if there were a problem. I haven't had personal experience.

We did not previously use a different solution.

I was involved in the deployment and initial setup. It was straightforward. 

It was straightforward in the sense that we used it in a very limited way first as a proof of concept. Therefore, it was simple to just deploy it on a desktop at first, where we didn't even use the server. We deployed it on the desktop to see if it was able to scan and to see if it was able to read the mail. In that sense, it was simplistic. 

We ran into issues as we were scanning it, sometimes it was classifying it right, and sometimes not. So we had to bring machine learning in for it to be accurate. Therefore, while we did run into some complexity, deployment-wise, it was simple.

Our strategy was simple: informing the infrastructure team that spun up a VM for us. 

We did not use any integrator, reseller, or advisor.

We have definitely seen an ROI. We compare it to the number of hours saved. For each process we do, we measure it by the number of hours we save across the globe. That's how we are measuring ROI now. We don't have hard dollar amounts.

The solution is expensive. 

Initially, it maybe was $8,000 or $10,000. However, as the number of bots increases, the pricing has to come down. That said, with volume, we don't see that. 

Price will definitely be a factor if we decide to use UiPath down the road. Even looking into this Studio Web, I was thinking, "Okay, I can upgrade immediately to the newer version." Then, if we need two or three more Studio Webs due to the development that we need to do, or even the Citizen Developer, the bot, it's going to become very expensive if we need to take off. Therefore, the volume should provide some sort of discount. 

We did evaluate Automation Anywhere. 

Automation Anywhere was offering a SaaS model, which we like. However, the cost was expensive, and also the scalability wasn't what we needed. We are just at the beginning of the automation journey. When we were evaluating it, we didn't have that many bots that could justify that cost. Right now, we are at the point where we are maybe at eight to ten bots. It is taking off pretty fast at this point. Managing it may become an issue for us at some point, and maybe with the scalability, that model may offer more value to us. I don't think UiPath offers that as a cloud.

We are still surfacing demand for automating processes based on sustainable or environmental causes. We aren't using any automation to promote any good causes just yet.

I have yet to be a part of UiPath's user community and have yet to understand what they offer.

We haven't gotten into the UiPath Academy. We partnered with a couple of vendors, and I'm not sure if they're Academy-certified people.

At this time, while we do use AI, I'm not sure if it's UiPath's AI. We are still surfacing the process. We've done a proof of concept, and we have to measure the metrics to see if it makes sense for us to move ahead. 

For us, at least, the cost is the biggest factor for us to scale up. For others evaluating the solution, they need to look at ten years down the road or what is their vision for automation. Only then can they effectively evaluate the products. 

This solution was simple, and it was easier to use, so we took this first, and now we're pretty much married at this point. There isn't anything to complain about, however, if we had the vision to see where we would be, we might have looked at other products more. I don't have any complaints as of this point. As of now, the cost is the biggest sticking factor for us.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

You have the studio licensing, and the orchestrator. The architecture is complex, at least from a business point of view. There are a lot of moving parts that I have to work with. As with any product, I would just want it to be up and running immediately without the hassle of maintenance. I feel the maintenance factor in this product is high.

We have about 180 bots we're doing now. I think the most interesting one we have is an underwriter bot. It collects information about a person who has just applied for a product, and it does research for the underwriter. It does financial research and medical record research, and it compiles all that into notes for the underwriter. It actually gives them a recommendation on how to proceed with the application. We do all sorts of use cases, including financial and claims, and have a hand in everything that MassMutual does.

In terms of the ease of building automations, we have processed millions of cases through UiPath. It has saved hundreds of thousands of hours for our employees and freed them up to do other tasks. At MassMutual, we have people lining up to have us make a bot for them. So, it's been well accepted.

I like the tie-ins to other languages. Being able to use Python, C#, and VB has been very valuable because I can get a more diverse developer skill set on my team. If somebody's interested in a particular language, I can push them in that direction. If they want to get more into C#, for example, we can do that.

We put all new developers through the UiPath Academy courses. We're trying to get more into attended automations as we're almost exclusively unattended right now. I'm trying to get all my developers to go through the attended automation course. It's only 16 hours, so I can upscale them all on how to build attended automations better. I'm also sending some citizen developers to that course. It's pretty easy for the developers to pick up, and the citizen developers can try it.

We struggle with handwriting recognition. If we had something, maybe in Document Understanding, that would work well with handwriting recognition, it would help us out a lot. Right now, we use an outside vendor for that.

I've been using UiPath for four and a half years.

We've been using UiPath for almost four and a half years, and we've had one outage so far. The stability has been great.

We've grown a great deal in the last four years, and scalability hasn't been a problem.

We have a really talented development team, so we haven't used technical support much. However, they've been useful when we've run into problems. I'd give them a rating of ten out of ten.

Positive

I was not involved with the initial setup, but all other deployments and upgrades have been seamless.

We measure the ROI by how many full-time employees we would need to do the work the bots are doing. I think we're at 90 to 100 covered. It's working well.

The cost of UiPath is much less than that of Blue Prism. They've been very flexible and willing to work with us with our new contractors we just signed on. It's worked out well.

We looked at Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. We chose UiPath because of the technology that we can use to build things. I like that our developers have marketable skill sets when using UiPath. They can use their SQL skills and their C# skills, for example. With some of the other products, the developers aren't really stretching themselves or making complicated solutions, which is just what they really want to do. It just seems like the other programs are more drag-and-drop only, and I don't think that's great for my team.

My advice would be to start slow and small. Big bots sound like they give you a great ROI, but the complexity and the amount of time you have to spend on them burn through your ROI quickly. We've learned that building small 10-week projects for bots is better.

On a scale from one to ten, I give UiPath a ten. It is very simple to use and easy to pick up, like I'm learning with my new citizen developers. It can get really complex with my advanced developers being able to build some pretty unique things. I like that flexibility.

We can use UiPath for pretty much anything, including document reading, day-to-day processing, or maintenance cases. For pretty much anything that the business comes up with, we can use UiPath. 

It's the only RPA software I've ever used. It's really given us the capability to help automate a ton of slow-moving tasks.

It is helping to automate some finance processes, shared service processes, and items like that to eliminate some tedious tasks that people don't want to deal with.

The Automation Hub helps prioritize things. I'd say using the community edition to get citizen developers on board has been great. Those are probably the two biggest aspects of the solution for me.

The user community is helpful. The forum is really great. I need to build up a bigger community around me; however, for right now, the users are super helpful.

I've used UiPath's Academy courses. It's great for letting people do training at their own pace. It also speeds up training. I don't have to spend hours teaching people how to do stuff. They can do it whenever they want. That's super helpful.

We'd like more onboarding features for new people. I mostly taught myself. It would help if it was more proactive in reaching out and saying, "Here are all of our connectors. Here's the stuff you can do." The program itself is really easy to use, however, to understand the capabilities, it would be nice to have more of a guiding hand.

I've used the solution for probably two years. 

The stability is good. I've never had a feed down and find it to be rather solid. 

The scalability is pretty strong. It seems to be as scalable as you want to make it. It depends on your design. For example, if you make a shady bot, that's not going to work scalability-wise. However, if you build your bot the right way to handle tasks quickly, it'll do it quickly and will scale well.

Technical support is really good. I've only used it twice. However, both times they have been really quick to respond and help.

Positive

We did not previously use any other RPA software.

I am involved in the initial setup process. I started the CoE of my last job, and I'm doing that at this job now.

We used a partner to help with it, so it was pretty straightforward. If I had to do it myself, I'd probably struggle, however, with partners, it's easy.

I have seen an ROI. The first spot I made paid for the license. It's pretty quick to realize a return on investment. 

We've used Automation Hub to track monetary and hourly savings. My last company probably saved to the tune of $300,000 annualized. I just started this job. I will be able to note an ROI pretty soon.

I need to dig into pricing a bit more. It's pretty affordable for what you get. 

We evaluated the whole market before choosing UiPath. However, I wasn't directly a part of the process and, therefore, can't get into specifics. 

I do not yet use UiPath to automate processes that deal with a good cause that our company is involved in. I've only worked at the company for two weeks. I'm a little new.

I have yet to use the AI functionality in our automation program. 

I'd advise others to work with a partner to deploy it at your company. Don't try to do everything at once. Build a list of ideas before you start trying to get into things. Have a funnel of projects to do.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. They could improve a couple of things. However, it's really easy to use. You don't really have to learn any code. It is really easy to get people to learn it on their own. It's pretty solid overall.

We have quite a few use cases, and a few big ones are creating purchase orders, reviewing invoice PDFs and extracting information from them, and creating customer orders from forms that are emailed in.

UiPath Orchestrator is a valuable feature for us. We started with all attended bots without Orchestrator, on-premises, or on the cloud. It was almost like a very low-cost way to prove that we needed this technology and that we could use it. So, for our first year, we did that. For the second year, we got Orchestrator, and it gave us the ability to utilize the bots more effectively. I thought we were going to have more attended bots, and we didn't because the process owners wanted things to happen in the background and wanted to be able to schedule them. Being able to do that and not have to have someone worry about triggering the bot or babysitting the computer while the bot runs, etc. have been the biggest game-changers for us.

The biggest benefit we've seen from using UiPath is time savings. Since June, when our fiscal year started, we've saved 8,000 hours so far. We're measuring everything in terms of hours saved, mainly because that's where we see the most benefit. I haven't really seen a big cost reduction, like replacing people with automation. Our teams are pretty slim right now.

A lot of the time what we found was that people were working extraordinarily long days. Now, they're actually able to do their job because they don't have all these other things that they had to take care of before. With some of our use cases in customer service, we've been able to avoid costs by not having to hire temporary staff. This is because a lot of the transactions that they would've taken care of are now done by the bots. They are doing it faster and more accurately. We have automated 36 processes so far. We have three attended, but most of our processes are unattended.

The biggest value of the UiPath Academy courses has been the ability to point new citizen developers to it. They are self-guided and require very little oversight from the team, so it provides the ability to grow a citizen development community with very little time from our team. The UiPath Academy is also useful for onboarding new team members; you can point them to some of the basic courses and have them get an idea of what RPA is all about, what we have, Orchestrator, etc.

UiPath Insights needs improvement. It's been almost five months since we got it, and I'm yet to see a business impact dashboard, which was the selling point.

Trying to get Insights support has been really tricky. The documentation that's out there is not detailed enough, and it doesn't really tell you how to make it happen. I've paid for a product for five months that I still can't present to my senior leadership.

I've been using UiPath for about two and a half years.

The stability is good overall, and we haven't really had any issues. We do have certain processes, especially with certain systems, that are very finicky, and we have to go back and keep updating. I don't know how much of it is UiPath versus just the nature of automation.

We got premium support, but getting the attention of the person that is dedicated to our account has been really hard. It shouldn't be that hard, especially not when we're paying $12,000 a year for it.

We've also had a lot of issues with Insights. When we get to the right person, it's helpful and easy, but getting to the right person is way too complicated, especially considering that we're paying for premium support.

So, I would give technical support a rating of seven on a scale from one to ten.

Neutral

We went with UiPath because they are a leader in the robotics industry.

The initial deployment was complex. We started with all attended, and transitioning from attended to orchestrated was not easy. Nobody understood that we had been operating robots without any orchestration, so whenever we talked to UiPath, they would tell us to get our on-premises Orchestrator and migrate it to the cloud even though we didn't have an on-premises Orchestrator. They should've already known that because they had all the details. It wasn't straightforward, but we did it.

Transitioning to Orchestrator in the cloud, probably, took us three months. 
We had to recreate workflows because the workflows were attended to.

We did it ourselves.

I talked to the CIO of a medical company, and they had implemented Automation Anywhere. They had a good experience with it, and it was good for their use cases. However, their use cases were very different from ours. So, I talked to some of our partners, and one of our partners had a relationship with a UiPath partner, so we did the proof of concept with UiPath. It worked, and so we just went from there.

Understand what your goals are with RPA, and make sure that UiPath is the right vehicle for it.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate UiPath at nine.

We have implemented a couple of use cases. One is with our creative collection scenario. We are also working on order automation. That will go live in October.

Since we are fairly new, I will say we have only two scenarios running right now, and they've been going on for almost a year. It's definitely saved us a lot of time. We haven't rolled out too many scenarios yet. When we'll be rolling out our order automation for 15 countries, I will see more benefits in the uses as we go.

The most valuable feature is definitely the document understanding. We have started using it for the order automation project that I'm working on. It definitely has some challenges also, especially dealing with other languages. However, so far, it's good.

We only have our Cash App or our credit collection scenario. We save around one-tenth of the time we typically spend where a lot of transactions happen. We save around 60 hours every month, at least for now.

UiPath's user community is definitely helpful. Usually, I'd look it up there first when we run into a problem.

Our team has used UiPath Academy courses. Academy courses were really helpful in giving us a good start to have a good foundation. Although we use UiPath to develop our scenarios, having that Academy access and going through the training definitely helped us get up to speed very quickly.

I definitely want some improvement on the documentation of the understanding side.

Maybe they should build more out-of-the-box apps rather than companies building their own implementation from scratch and maybe build them as a product on top of the platform. That would save time in implementation.

We're a SAP shop, so I'm looking more at what scenarios can be pre-booked using UiPath. I know there are some escalators that are there in SAP. However, they are not production ready, in my view. That area definitely can be improved since they're all Excel-based, and they're more proof of concept rather than production ready.

I've been using the solution for almost two years. 

Stability is one area where I'm really concerned. Sometimes it does behave erratically and I have to stop everything, and deploy it again, and it works fine. Therefore, I have some concerns about how it's going to scale out when there is a very high volume.

I'm concerned that we may have issues with scalability as it can behave erratically, and I have to stop and redeploy it.

For example, right now, we have a very small implementation. We will be implementing this order automation for 15 countries with a lot of customers. So I have concerns about how UiPath will scale out to these countries plus even more countries that I am planning to implement as well. What will be the process, what will the performance impact, and how is it going to behave? I do have concerns there right now.

I have dealt with technical support a few times. That said, most of the time, I could figure out the problem myself. There is one problem that I'm still dealing with in terms of technical support, and it's been ongoing. They have involved the product team to help resolve that particular issue. I have to say that I'm not thrilled with the support that I got.

Neutral

We did not previously use a different solution. We used to do everything manually.

I lead our automation implementation. For our treasury, it was easy; however, for the automation we are going live with in October, the process is a bit more complex. 

Our implementation strategy involved starting small and starting with a couple of use cases. I decided to use UiPath as our partner to cover our bases since I wanted to ensure we have a good foundation with best practices before we start doing anything in-house.

We had UiPath assist us with the initial implementation. The experience was pretty good. There were some challenges to deal with in terms of having a robust solution with good logging and notifications. That definitely didn't happen right off the bat. That said, overall, it was an okay process. 

We are definitely seeing an ROI. For example, we are saving 60 hours every month, and it's a small implementation. With order automation, we are going to save a lot of time. I don't have the exact numbers yet. However, we are positive about the outcomes we expect.

I was quite surprised at the pricing. We decided to implement action forms, and at that time, I was not aware that there is a separate licensing. It's difficult sometimes when you have to go back to your finance team or the sponsor and tell them that you need more money. Any licensing requirement has to be clear up front rather than being revealed later. I'm not worried about the cost, it's more about knowing what license we need, and in my implementation, we had quite a few mishaps related to licenses.

We looked at a couple of other products.

I don't want to go into what products we looked at. However, I can definitely say the main criterion behind selecting UiPath was its ease of use. We did a proof of concept in-house without any help. That was my main criterion for making a decision. 

Also, there's a good product path in terms of what they're doing next. UiPath is a market leader. We wanted to go with a solution that not only meets our needs for now but also is taking the effort, time, and money in building the product and bringing new capabilities.

We're fairly new to the process and have yet to get into using UiPath for a good cause.

We aren't using the AI functionality yet.

I'd advise potential users to do their homework. Look at other products and make the decision based on what capabilities you are looking at. I will say don't look at only one scenario. Look at the overall picture. Look at what your future plans are. I still believe UiPath is the best product when it comes to RPA. However, you have got to look at the whole picture at the outset.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. There are a lot of good things happening. It's very easy to use, and UiPath has a very good product roadmap. That's the key for me. Especially with AI, process mining, cost mining, et cetera, they're really going to help any company that signs on.

Our company uses the solution for documentation understanding, email automation, and onboarding. Many of our use cases include AbbVie. 

Our company has saved thousands of hours by automating accounting processes. Staff no longer have to drudge through manual tasks and that is meaningful to them so they do better work. 

The solution provides ease of access for users with limited knowledge. One of our high-level developers can code it for a user who can maintain it with limited coding knowledge. The solution is much easier to use than having an actual coded application. 

For example, a developer can build out a use case that involves emailing invoices and includes labels and documentation. The product can then be handed off to a user who does not have coding knowledge because all needed information is included for maintenance and administration. 

There is a bit of a learning curve to the solution because it is like coding. If you are a coder it will be easy but you cannot dive very deep into the code. The way you go about the architecting process is very different from other tools because you have to lay out the flow in a certain way. 

Reusability is not as great as straight coding where you can recall functions and methods. The solution requires a whole workflow that can become a bit tedious when processes expand too much. 

Features I have wanted such as enhanced process mining and others have been shown in the new preview so are already forthcoming. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The stability is pretty good and the solution has not shut down. I have experienced a few crashes, but they are probably caused by my own computer.

The scalability depends on how you develop it. If you develop it to be scalable, then it will be scalable. In terms of Orchestrator, the platform is pretty good at scaling because it allows you to keep deploying it and branching out. 

The Community is great and operates similarly to Stack Overflow's community. Users have their own niche knowledge and you can query them if you ever need anything. This is a good way to expand your own knowledge base. 

I took the Academy's courses when I first started using the solution so haven't learned the new features yet. Over normal coursework, you learn best practices that enable you to pick up the tool faster, such as how to document process flow or how to set up from a high-level perspective. 

I have not needed technical support. 

I have not used other solutions. 

The setup is pretty easy and straightforward. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

We always hope to see ROI in every process. We have realized a bunch of ROI on deployed items and hopefully will see more. 

For our provisioning process, we save a few hours per person each day. 

Our company did not evaluate other options. 

I advise others to try out the solution. It is really good software and has helped a bunch of people to switch careers. For example, I used to be an actual developer but now I do RPA. The solution is an industry leader so it is a good idea to try it out at least once.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We implement automation for clients to create savings by cutting the number of FTEs. We've used UiPath for various kinds of automation, including mainframes, browsers, Excel, account payables and receivables, fixed assets, healthcare projects, HR projects, reporting robots, and IT services projects. 

Recently, we did a massive US taxation project that spanned eleven months and covered enterprise and individual taxation extensions. It was a huge project that yielded a lot of savings. 

If I want to leverage a specific UiPath use case, I build small use cases around that particular feature and try to envision a product out of it. I've had several hackathons and general discussion calls because I'm a solution architect. Everybody wants to work on apps, and UiPath is comparable to the blank canvas apps that Microsoft PowerApps provides. 

When we had an automation program that involved 200-plus automations, we created around 100-plus libraries, saving us thousands of hours of development time. UiPath is designed to save time. The object repository was liberating because it enabled us to move from simple to extendable libraries. UiPath's apps increase our business by helping us leverage the UI layer in a way we couldn't in the past.

It gives us the ability to share data between systems in healthcare applications.. However, it's still tricky because so many system controls are in place. That's not a limitation of UiPath per se, but every department has restrictions on passing data to other departments. They have their own due diligence in place, limiting data flow from one system to another. UiPath gives us the fluidity and freedom to do it, but the limitations within each domain often get in the way.

Let's use claims data, for example. The data regulation team won't be too keen on allowing the marketing department to use data from the claims division to generate new business. The data flow from one department to another isn't that fluid. Organizational controls rather than system controls bind it.

We should look at each separately in terms of AI and machine learning. If we want to do data analysis, we have to call an inverse Python script, which is a little difficult. However, we can host our own model, and that's good. The ability to use that opened some doors. 

At the same time, it's helpful to have out-of-the-box features like Document Understanding and an ML passer there. The integration is quite fluid. We can directly call a Document Understanding model and then give it to ML passer and then get the results out. It's smoother for integration. The client has to focus on one particular software or multi-stack that they're comfortable with. UiPath has opened some opportunities in that sense. It made life easier because the capability is sitting inside the platform itself. 

UiPath is a separate solution, but it can talk to other services and doesn't restrict you to the passer, but that's how the ML features within Document Understanding help us. Custom model hosting and the AI center also help. We don't have to host the custom model somewhere else and call that service then pass it and do the post-processing within the system. It isn't a third-party service, so we know it's sitting within the system. If any issues are also there, we know where to diagnose and deposit them.

UiPath Orchestrator is a treasure, and UiPath Studio includes various packages to integrate with solutions like Salesforce, ServiceNow, and Excel. They also have mainframes, web automation, and the API package. 

Orchestrator contains a lot of useful apps, data services, and machine templates. From a usability perspective, the most valuable aspects are its custom activities, libraries, and object repositories. In terms of integration, I like the ability to use APIs and call automations from UiPath apps. The most valuable feature from a human-in-the-loop perspective is the action center. 

Our customers appreciate the support that UiPath provides, and they don't want to go with a third-party vendor like Microsoft Visio, Form Recognizer, or Google Cloud. They're hesitant because some integration is required. The lead times for closing queries are longer with third-party vendors. For instance, it takes me about two or three weeks to set up Document Understanding in my project. But it took us three months to establish Form Recognizer with a client.  

In addition to the out-of-the-box functionality UiPath provides, it can host our custom models. That's something that comes in handy when we need a custom model. So far, we haven't taken it to production yet, but we are still baselining the technology. At the moment, we are doing a baseline project where we try to perform four POCs simultaneously. We are baselining Google Cloud Platform, Azure, and AWS with UiPath's AI center and machine learning services and comparing the four.

UiPath's performance could be improved. UiPath's framework was built on top of .NET Core. It was a 32-bit platform initially, but they recently introduced a 64-bit version. Let's say I have a huge machine with 64 gigs of RAM. If I have a server machine and want to use multi-threading to extend my automation and multitask, the design won't allow me. I can't separate things into multiple processes. 

The platform is designed to go step by step. Parallel activities are not truly parallel, but it creates the impression that it's running in parallel. For example, if you're on the left segment within a parallel activity, and there is some wait time, it doesn't stay there. It goes to the middle and then to the right. It schedules tasks based on a time-to-completion window and then takes them from end to end. 

UiPath optimizes the time and doesn't let the CPU idle, but it doesn't give you multi-threading or asynchronous methodologies. These are available in the C# and .NET framework but absent in this platform. It's a step-by-step process where you go through each activity. A casual developer or coder who wants to leverage UiPath should be able to. I'm not saying that the working code is not there, but it's quite basic. It doesn't support functions or asynchronous methodology. 

UiPath is attempting to make it easier for a citizen developer to automate processes. They don't have to know how to code, but a citizen developer can't do it when the use case becomes more complex. When they advertise that one doesn’t need to know coding to program bots, that's only true for easy or intermediate use cases. We still need a programmer for anything beyond medium complexity.

The marketing could be improved because the methodologies went from waterfall COE to an automated operation model. However, people are trying to do automation in an Agile model, but it's not exactly executable that way. When customers see the demos from UiPath, they expect that the results will be significant, and they are. However, we might try to automate something, and we’re unsure whether it can be automated because there's a gray area. There's always a 20 to 30 percent chance automation might fail. And that gray area is something that I want UI to focus on.

They have tried this with StudioX by adding checklists. The industry is not following this practice, though. I'm not sure how they should ensure that it gets followed within the platform, but the delivery model needs to improve. It's still niche. 

Another thing to consider is the work-life balance of the developer and the solution architect. The overall challenge of automation tends to become exponentially complex over time. For example, let's look at one aspect: the account tables. I can go to the account tables from a simple PDF perspective. The PDF is readable by the board, and the solution can extract all the data and do the account tables within SAP or Ariba and mix all of it and then submit a report to the business.

This can be extended to intelligent document processing using form recognizer and custom models, then passers, pre-processing, post-processing, and sending the report to the business. The complexity of it can be extended quite a lot. There should be a framework or methodology in place to hedge the bet so that it's not too complex and doesn't disrupt the life of a developer, solution architect, or business analyst. 

If the automation becomes too complex and challenging, our support team won't be able to sustain it in the long run. Once the development team is gone, the automation will die two or three months down the line. It's a balance to manage the complexity and extent of our automation.  

We've been using UiPath for a little more than four years. 

Resource utilization is one area where UiPath is lacking. UiPath says that the solution will run fine on a machine with four gigs of RAM, and they recommend horizontal scaling, but I suggest a mix of horizontal and vertical scaling. 

I've seen implementations on giant machines with high-density VMs and five users logged into the same VM. Therefore, the resource utilization isn't optimal. The RAM and CPU are not completely utilized. It only executes processes on a segment of the resources. I think that can improve. 

I rate UiPath's support nine out of ten. UiPath's support is excellent. They triage issues based on severity, and there is a clearly defined close time and lead time. Their support engineers will follow up with you 24/7 over phone, SMS, or email. 

The scope of support isn't limited to problems with the UiPath platform. We can reach out to UiPath if we are having problems automating a third-party application. They will help us if they have experience with the app. If they don't have experience, they baseline the issue and go through the log to do whatever they can to help us. We've had a great experience with UiPath's support, and our clients feel the same. Support is one reason UiPath is dominating the market. 

Positive

Most of the RPA solutions are fairly similar. The inspiration for UiPath's object repository was taken from Blue Prism. UiPath's integration services are like the connectors in Microsoft Power Platform. I'm not saying that UiPath is exactly copying everybody, but they're taking the best features from every solution and bringing them in-house. 

Other platforms are dominating in some areas. For example, Power Apps is more mature than UiPath Apps. I'm trying to add value based on my experience, and Power Platform's connectors should also bring value to UiPath. In the end, it shouldn't be redundant.

Every time we deploy the solution, we use an automation operation model. It's a massive document with policies defined on every level, from design to development, UATS, prods, escalations, business, teams, team leads, Agile boards, and reporting. 

All of that is documented from the start. We use that model to layout deliverables needing to be fulfilled. Once deployment progresses from one step to another, we have a way to document our progress. We've gone from a theoretical model to a UI model. It's not purely Agile or KanBan, though Agile framework and KanBan breakdown structures are there. However, it doesn't follow a scrum methodology. 

We're not on a two or three-week release cycle. One sprint is the entire use case from build to development and then from development to UAT to production. It's a custom delivery model, and it's working. Still, I feel it can be improved. 

Our clients have seen significant returns using UiPath, but their marketing could be improved. 

I'm aware of how UiPath's pricing compares to other tools, but it's hard because the offerings are different. It's not apples and oranges per se, but it's comparing an average tool to an excellent one. UiPath provides enormous value, so the licensing is justified.

I rate UiPath nine out of ten. It isn't perfect, but they constantly improve and surprise me. At the moment, I give it a nine, but it might be eight in the future. If you feel like some process will cause a lot of headaches, position it later in the cycle of automation. If you can save resources by automating, you should go for it, but you should be smart when deciding your use cases.

If you're thinking about implementing UiPath, I recommend having a design team that understands automation. You need people with some experience who know how automation is done. It requires some business analysts with at least a month of experience on UiPath from a citizen developer perspective. It would help quite a lot in terms of establishing automations that are relatively complex. Try an 80-20 approach operating principle when planning your automation.

We are using UiPath for automation processes in an insurance company in the finance department.

The most valuable feature of UiPath is if you set a form and there's an interaction with the user, it's easy and fast to build than the other RPA tools. Additionally, it is simple to use the connectors.

In UiPath they should improve the input and outputs of processes. I found it very complicated.

In a future release of UiPath, they could improve the OCR engine to make it better. All the RPA tools use some OCR engine, while UiPath's is the best but it is hard to configure and set up for your projects.

I have been using UiPath for approximately six months.

The stability of UiPath is highly stable.

We have approximately four people using this solution in my organization.

I have not used the support from UiPath.

We previously used Blue Prism.

UiPath gives a return on investment, it does what it is supposed to do.

UiPath is an expensive solution but it is worth the money. You have a lot of features. 

The licenses need to be improved because when you have to use UiPath on another system, you have to set up the processes manually, and you are not able to change the process the time if you configure a process running at the system. You have to stop it and then run to the other system. It's not too easy to configure it according to the system. If you have a large deployment, for example, 10 to 20 bots, it's hard to configure.

UiPath has a lot of free training and a lot of free processes ready to go. You have to see the best practices in order to receive the best way of development. It is important to see the best practices guide.

I rate UiPath a nine out of ten.

UiPath is great because it's highly stable, it's fast to develop, and easy to configure. However, there are some improvements to be made.