UiPath Test Cloud Reviews

We use the solution to automate tests. We have different teams implementing different applications. My responsibility is to use it on end-to-end tests.

There are a lot of benefits of automation. We probably have reduced the number of incidents in production, but that's very difficult to estimate. We are finding bugs and defects much faster. We have very fast feedback when we do automated tests. We also have much better documentation of our applications. We may have documentation written down somewhere, but it is hard to maintain. When we have automated tests running, our application is actively working.

The most important thing in the solution is the robotic part. It’s fundamental. It should be able to go across, and that is what robust robotics does. It is the core functionality of UiPath. There's a lot of things we can do. We can integrate it into our CI/CD pipeline. We also can schedule runs in Orchestrator.

We monitor the runs on Orchestrator. Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand. We almost need to have certification to use it.

I have been using the solution for three and a half years.

The product is stable.

Primarily, around 30 developers use the product in our organization. It is scalable.

I am satisfied with the technical support. There are various channels we can use. My developers are using those. I haven't heard them complain about it.

Positive

The initial deployment was straightforward because we had already deployed the robotics part. We had several instances of tests, but we already ran robotics, so we had infrastructure in place. The deployment was quick. We ordered the service and downloaded the software. That was the easy part. Usually, we would see a lot of issues, but we have an expert to solve those issues when we need to install things. The solution is deployed centrally. Anybody who wants access to it can have it.

We have patches and upgrades, as always. It’s not a challenge, but we need to do that sometimes. It is usually done during the night. The tool does require maintenance. Whenever the changes are done in the applications, we need to change our test cases.

When we decided to buy the solution three and a half years ago, it was fairly priced. The price was almost the same as the big competitors. I have heard that the price has increased. However, it was fairly priced when we bought it.

We implemented the solution because we didn't have a common test automation tool. We needed a common test automation tool that could go across a lot of applications. We can have various tools that may be used for UI, DB, or API, but we needed something that could go across a lot of applications.

We use various UIs, Citrix, SAP, API calls, and database queries. The ability of Test Suite to automate tests from a wide range of technologies is very high. We haven't found anything we cannot do. We didn't do automation in the range we do now.

We haven't integrated much. The tool can be integrated with CI/CD pipelines. There are some plugins available, at least for Jenkins, but we have tried to integrate with others without issues. We have also integrated with some pipelines in Jira. We haven't found issues when we tried to integrate with other tools. However, we haven't done that much.

We find defects faster now. It's a very important part of automated tests. The faster we can find defects and bugs, the less cost or time it takes to resolve them. If a bug is introduced in any environment and we find it out after two weeks, it is quite difficult to find out what we did two weeks ago. If we get the response immediately after we have deployed something into an environment, we can understand it quickly. That's a very important part of automated tests.

We are now running thousands of test cases every day. If we want to do that manually, we'll never get the money from management to do that range of testing. However, it's almost free when we get it automated. We cannot compare the two. We're not saving costs directly on testing. We are saving costs on faster feedback and faster delivery of new features.

A big part of UiPath is robotics. If it is not available, we can develop it ourselves. We used RPA for many years. There are some differences. We need to have Test Suite to test things. It was not a big change for the organization and the resources needed. We cannot calculate ROI. We see benefits when we have fast feedback and probably fewer incidents in production.

We didn't see time to value immediately. We saw time to value with Test Suite within half a year or one year. There are discussions about UiPath. They say that anybody can use UiPath. My recommendation would be to use well-educated developers. They must have some education or certification on UiPath. However, they are expensive.

Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

UiPath Test Suite helps reduce the TCO because, without testing, the maintenance would go higher. When something goes down, you lose that trust and you lose that availability. UiPath Test Suite can help you maintain that, so you are getting value out of it.

UiPath Test Suite helps to reduce maintenance. We are able to build resiliency and the ability to see an issue before it happens. We are able to call it out and have it give us that information on the COE side. We are able to develop it, drive it, build it out, and see it beforehand. The end user does not see if it fails or not. It does not usually fail because we see it beforehand. If I have to put a number on how much time and maintenance it saves, not looking at building the self-healing capabilities and just looking at building production-ready stuff for your core systems, there is about 38% saving on maintenance.

UiPath Test Suite saves time on projects, but that does not happen in the beginning because it takes time to:

• Learn how to do it.
• Have your team level up and learn how to handle things better and build them as a part of your schema and your process.
• Have your developers learn to say that this is now the norm. It is not a hard-coded thing. Let us just develop it this way. 

Over time, it gets easier because you have developed that information, and you are able to save more time later on.

UiPath Test Suite helps automate tests from a wide range of technologies. I myself have developed automation for a wide range from winery focus to healthcare focus to government focus. UiPath has been the key platform that I have used for the last five years of using automation.

In terms of integration with other lifecycle tools and applications, UiPath Test Suite works very well because of the basis of RPA, and how RPA and automation can handle different applications and different areas of expertise. You can work with business and domain users and drive where they are looking at or what those winds are, but you can also use UiPath Test Suite to go deep down and find out the real worry or ask of the user or business. It may not be the direct top-layer stuff. There may be something down in there, and you can build in a check there as well. It is like an extra test.

At FORWARD VI, we see new automations being built around AI and the ability to have developers understand how they can drive some of those AI capabilities with Studio. We are starting to see that. They should also drive that with UiPath Test Suite so that we can not only build that development side faster; we can also develop the tests that go along with it, hopefully automatically.

The stability of UiPath Test Suite is probably better than most things because you are already building up existing things. It should be fairly seamless. You already have the right information. You are already doing this based on an already existing process that has already been defined by the business and vetted by the business. They have already said to go ahead with it in production. It is pretty seamless. 

The needs of the business can be handled with UiPath Test Suite because I believe UiPath Test Suite helps you understand how other parties and other parts of the business organization think, especially when you dive into it. You get that business SME or domain expert who says, "We are going to build a test suite on this, and we are going to build regression automation. Take a look at it. Is there anything more?", and you find out that there is more that is going to define and give you that insight into that team to say that this is really what they are looking for. Some of that can dial back into the processes that you are going to build out for them in the future.

UiPath's support is fair. You do get some support from their overall offerings. Their sales folks work with your teams. If you have any in-between, they work through that as well. You usually get a lot of information, but if you need more hands-on help, they do have a support team. I believe they have a starter team that will help drive some integrations if you need it. If you pay for the support, it is a good eight out of ten.

Positive

Most of the test automation has been around GERKIN and some of the other test tools such as ServiceNow test tools, but by utilizing UiPath Test Suite, we are able to touch more different applications and platforms. There has been a higher level of development and a higher level of working than any of the other platforms I have used. 

I lead the COE for different countries in six continents in the healthcare space. I lead the development team and the BI team and run the projects. I am the overall architect of everything that we do.

UiPath Test Suite is fairly straightforward as long as your developers have some familiarity with it. You always have the opportunity to level up your team and then get them some knowledge there. If you need help, there is a lot of training out there for it. That is where UiPath wins. There is a lot of information that you are able to get to the teams and train them. The widgets are all the same. The marketplace is relatively the same. It is seamless.

For implementing UiPath Test Suite, my way to utilize it and handle maintenance is to focus on your core applications or the big things that you do not want to go down or be seen as down. Nobody gets mad when the lights are on, but when the lights go off, people are like, "What is going on here?" For those high-focused items, make sure you have tests in place.

We did not take the help of any reseller or consultant group. It is myself and my team. There are some wins to do that. If you have a COE and you are looking to build it out and need to have the information that is not readily available, then always work with a partner. However, make sure that you have someone who is going to be a partner and not just a consultant.

You may not see ROI in the sense of return on investment, but the return on investment that COE or the automation groups are going to get is along the lines of value, trust, and the overall integrity of everything else around it. If you handle potential failures before they become failures, nobody will see them, so the value there is that you are up 100% of the time.

For test automation, we have not evaluated any other solution. Test-wise, it is easier to keep it in the same scope and the same platform because it makes it easier to use those utilities you may have built out. It is easier to use those use cases and those assets. You can utilize Orchestrator to drive what that looks like, and that is the goal. 

To someone who thinks that their automation testing is too complex for UiPath Test Suite to process, I would say that go back to the basics. Go back to the beginning, work with your BAs, understand that PDD, work with that SME and domain expert, and get it written down because that is the detail you need to be able to develop. If your developers are going back and forth, try to get answers that they did not get. If your BAs did not do the right job in the first place, you may need to relook at how you analyze that.

Everything could be better. Overall, I would rate UiPath Test Suite a seven out of ten. I would give it a higher number if they build in the AI components that we are seeing at FORWARD VI.

We mainly work with web as well as desktop automation. One of our use cases was to raise a ticket from the web portal to the ServiceNow defect management tool, and another was the need to interact with a Linux server through PuTTY. We use UiPath to run different ETL jobs.

When ETL jobs failed, our team used to manually rerun them and log a ticket in ServiceNow. Before restarting a job, they might have to perform some type of operation on it, such as a modification in the data pipeline or the removal of bad data. Or they might have to execute Linux commands. We have automated the restart and execution, and we then send a notification to Outlook as well.

Our team used to require five to six days to complete the entire release or execution cycle. Now, we're able to complete it within just one or one and a half days.

In our current scope, we have to interact with different kinds of applications, including mobile and desktop. UiPath definitely helps us seamlessly interact with these different kinds of applications, and now we can successfully automate any kind of workflow. We can easily automate any kind of complex scenario.

It is definitely easy to build automations with UiPath. Tricentis Tosca and UiPath are both user-friendly.

I would like to see users have the ability to add their own healing features, such as activating object-healing processes. If they could add that feature, that would be beneficial.

It would be something like a rescan. With Selenium, there is a plugin called Healenium, which helps automatically detect changed properties of objects. With one click, it automatically updates the object repository with the changed properties.

I would like UiPath to add that capability. It should be able to rescan a page and report to the user the properties that have been changed, and then allow the user to decide which properties they want to update in the object repository.

We have been using UiPath for about one year.

UiPath is quite a stable product.

UiPath's technical support is quite strong. They could improve on their speed of response.

Positive

Earlier, we used Selenium for automation to interact with web applications only. But we were looking for one tool that can interact with all kinds of applications, such as API-based applications as well as mobile and desktop applications.

I was involved from deployment to implementation and execution. It was a straightforward process. The installation only took one to two hours. I did it myself. There are straightforward instructions and default settings. I just needed to click "next, next."

Using both UiPath and Tosca, we have achieved about 70 to 80 percent ROI. We used to require 10 team members for execution, and now we hardly need two to three resources.

The time-to-value of UiPath, from the initial development of our automation suite until we saw automation working at some level, took about three months.

On the pricing front, Tosca is a bit more costly than UiPath, but UiPath is also pretty expensive compared to other tools. But on the performance front, when it comes to execution, both tools are more mature. And we can automate quickly with both products. Both are keyword-driven, and there is no scripting required. Even with a large application, we can speed up automation.

Both tools are quite capable of integrating with CI/CD tools, as well as test management tools like ALM, JIRA, or a source control repository.

For maintenance, Tosca is better than UiPath. Tosca has a rescan feature, so we can rescan objects. You just need to rescan the entire web page, and it will automatically update the object properties. That way, there is no need to manually update them. We definitely save time there. It's on the rescan front that UiPath lags compared to Tosca.

I also use Selenium, but it has many disadvantages. Selenium is mainly designed for web applications, but there are limitations for automating using APIs as well as desktop applications and mobile. UiPath is much stronger. The only advantage is that Selenium is open source.

Overall, UiPath is a good tool. I would definitely recommend it for automation over Tosca.

We develop regression automation test suites for this purpose.

We are still in the early phases of development, but there has been improvement. We now have a better understanding of the various scenarios and test cases involved.

The Test Manager stands out as the most valuable component. It facilitates the delegation of control to multiple users and offers an efficient way to organize tasks using labels. Moreover, the ability to create and execute test sets is highly beneficial, allowing us to seamlessly hand over responsibilities to the manual queuing team, including those overseeing the SaaS environment.

We are facing problems specifically with Desk Manager. Some users have concerns due to the transition from the well-established HP Micro Focus ALM.

I have been using UiPath for two years.

Scalability is quite beneficial. Our business often requires very specific modules to run, and with Test Manager and Studio, it's a much simpler and more flexible process. This allows us to execute various types of tests, including targeted regressions, with ease, which is always a valuable feature.

Customer support has been consistently responsive. They don't just address issues and disappear; they follow up and ensure things are resolved. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

We were previously using Micro Focus and Selenium. One of the key reasons we selected this tool is that we had previously used different tools that couldn't effectively handle multiple technologies, causing challenges in integration testing. 

The initial setup was easy. Maintenance has significantly reduced the operational challenges during execution. We no longer require manual test team intervention, allowing our test automation engineers more time to focus on their work.

Initially, we had automated just one location using a different automation tool. Our first step was to transfer those thousand test cases from the current tool to the new one, and as it became evident that the new approach was successful, we began receiving more requests from multiple teams.

The return on investment is satisfactory. It has significantly lowered the TCO for our testing efforts. While we initially invested in creating the framework during the first year, we are now in a position to cut the time required to develop test cases and automation by half compared to what we were doing with UFT.

The cost is comparable to Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing, but it offers a greater number of features. It represents good value for the investment.

We considered several options, including Kaspersky. Ultimately, we narrowed it down to Kaspersky and UiPath. While UiPath had a Test Manager, we already had experience with UiPath Studio, and we had a capable team in place. This familiarity led us to choose it.

The advice I would offer is to engage in careful planning and thoughtful consideration before implementation. While Studio has a wealth of resources and articles, test automation, particularly in the context of RPA, requires a different approach. It's essential to thoroughly think through your strategy and how you intend to execute it. Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten. The reason for this rating is primarily related to Desk Manager, which requires further development and improvement.

I primarily use the solution for websites. It can take some details from users within multiple scenarios. If I were to pull the data manually, it would take a lot of time. Instead, we can create a bot in UiPath and do testing in far less time. 

I've seen multiple benefits.

For example, I used it for a healthcare website that went through multiple changes. We were able to test multiple scenarios very quickly. We noted the value of the product immediately. It didn't take long to get started.

It's helped me automate various scenarios, including testing website portals. I've used it to test mobile testing as well and it has been effective. 

It's very interesting to use. It helps take less time for us to test any portal or web application. 

We get good support from the UiPath team. We can email them or contact the team easily.

The interface is very simple to use. 

There are multiple types of UiPath products that we can leverage. If I don't know coding, for example, I can use Studio X. Anyone can use it. You don't need to be technical. 

We can automate tests from a wide range of technologies. We're satisfied with its capabilities in that context.

When we use the solution with mobile applications, we find it very beneficial. It's great that we can use it on mobile or websites and run various tests.

It's great for multiple sectors, including healthcare or banking. We can test for anything. 

UiPath is very customizable. We can configure it as we need without changing the code. We just change our control file as needed. 

I can run test cases very quickly, within seconds, in fact. 

I have not noticed the solution missing any features.

I'd like the solution to be even more automated.

I've been using the solution for two years. 

I have had the solution for two years and have never had an issue with stability. 

How many people use UiPath depends on the license. If I have an enterprise license, multiple people can use it at once. However, with a community license, only one person can use the license at a time.

We have six to seven people using the solution. 

We have the solution deployed on the UiPath cloud. That way, anyone can download and see it on the orchestrator. 

It is a very scalable product. We can scale to address the needs of the business. It's great for business purposes. However, it's not useful, for example, for personal work. 

Under our license, we have the ability to reach out to the support team and get immediate assistance. The technical support is very good. I can also go to the forum and get assistance. I can put a question on there and within a minute get multiple answers. UiPath is continuously working on the portal to ensure users get multiple answers. 

Positive

I've used multiple UiPath solutions, including the orchestrator, however, I have not used different applications. I haven't used Automation Anywhere or Power BI. I only have my UiPath certification. 

The deployment is fast. It only takes minutes to implement the solution.

We have different members working on the implementation.  

We have not witnessed any ROI. 

I don't have any access to licensing or cost information. My understanding is that it is very affordable from a business perspective. 

We are a UiPath partner. 

The solution works well, even for complex processes. It's step-by-step and I can test across multiple scenarios. We can handle very complex scenarios with ease. If you have to do something complex manually, it can take hours. With Test Suite, you can handle complex scenarios within minutes. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I would rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We use the solution for supply chain management use cases. We can do test automation on the UiPath process automation tool. We used it for logistics orders and distribution projects. We have different applications there. We automated 12 applications.

We've used the solution for SAP applications as well as Anaplan and Salesforce.

It helps with invoice processing and form filling. You can make a lot of manifest cases. A lot of customers were spending a lot of time clearing cases.UiPath can come in and automate a lot of the manual tasks. 

The document understanding is good.

It's helped free up staff time for other projects. For example, in billing scenarios on SAP. I implemented an automation. I designed it in just eight hours. In another vendor, it took 32 hours to design something. It was faster using UiPath. Our demo was very successful. We could lower the time for billing to four minutes, and eight seconds. The best part is that it can maintain data in one place which makes it faster than other tools.

We have been able to reduce maintenance. It was not so easy to maintain, and lately, it's gotten much easier with the object repository feature. Customers can maintain code very easily at this point. You don't need to touch the actual base code with UiPath. You can, for example, three different objects with one code. The base code remains the same even as the objects change. 

It's helped reduce the cost of testing. We don't need to, for example, maintain a separate database for UiPath solutions. You can maintain your raw test data and have everything, once again, in one place. You don't have to buy separate licenses. We don't need SQL and we don't have to go with Jira every time. We can make everything under one umbrella. With other automation tools, you often have to buy more than one license to have end-to-end capabilities. 

The product releases sometimes have issues. In the past, I have provided points, such as exporting to the external file and getting reporting in an Excel file. That cannot be done yet. 

I don't recommend UiPath for third-party tools. I don't see the value in that. There are, for example, still a lot of issues when integrating with Jira. There were just too many scenarios to integrate.

I've used the solution for about seven years.

The solution is absolutely stable. It's very stable and easy compared to other automation tools. It's very successful compared to other options. 

The solution can scale. There are a lot of other things to update. It can be quite difficult with Excel, SharePoint, and SQL. It can be difficult to connect with these compared to other automation tools. 

They provide very good support. They support the technology very well. 

Positive

I've also used Microsoft Power Platform. UiPath was much more stable. I've also worked with Automation Anywhere.

We have witnessed an ROI. Everything is in the cloud. It saves on power, execution, and maintenance. 

You don't need many developers to design your automation, and everything happens very fast. The development time is lower. You can get up and running quickly. It's easy to migrate your automation code if you need to. It's easy to do testing across different web apps as well. You only have a license cost, which may be high, yet the ROI is quickly visible.

For those that worry their testing is too complex for UiPath, I'd advise them that UiPath can actually do pretty much anything. It offers end-to-end capabilities where users have everything in one place. They can maintain data and code. The reporting is there. For complex testing, having everything in one place is very, very important. Having direct integration and reducing coding is key to simplifying everything. UiPath helps reduce time in creating testing and frameworks. It makes everything very easy. Data and summary reports are all right there. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I've worked on a variety of automation solutions and uiPath has been the best in my experience. While there still needs improvements in terms of streamlining external connectors, it works quite well.

We use the product for RPA and application testing. 

UiPath's most valuable features are reusability and low-code aspects. It works across both desktop and web applications. 

UiPath needs to improve its Test Manager feature. Defect management and reporting also need improvement. 

I have been working with the solution for two to three years. 

UiPath is stable. 

The tool's scalability is not an issue due to its low-code features. 

UiPath's support is good. They have a quick turnaround time. 

Positive

We used Selenium and UFT before. We chose UiPath to consolidate everything on a single platform and move away from older technology. We have also been using it for RPA. 

We were confused with Orchestrator's installation. The solution needs to have better documentation or information around it. 

The tool's deployment was done in-house. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. We are still young in our testing journey with UiPath. We may see more ROI when we add more test cases. 

UiPath is very expensive. 

We evaluated the market leaders. 

We are moving away from legacy technology. We consolidate everything into a single platform. I also like the tool's low-code benefits. 

UiPath has improved our collaboration and communication with developers. It has improved the turnaround time for test scripts and test sets. 

The solution has helped us reduce maintenance by leveraging libraries. 

The product has freed up our staff's time. The turnaround time for script development is faster now. 

We use UiPath to test various technologies like web and Java applications. 

There are fewer breaks in tester scripts and faster development time. The tool has reduced total testing costs. 

I rate the product a six out of ten. 

We just need to make sure that the test cases are created, to be able to validate those results as per the expectations. We then provide the results to the respective teams. There are a lot of integrations for the Test Suite as well with Jira and DFS, et cetera. That's where we would be able to integrate with the test cases and then provide the test cases as well.

We can automate different applications. We can do a test feed on Salesforce or run it on SAP. You can use others as well. It depends on the tools you set up for the test cases on the test system.

If someone is already using UiPath products, this is a good product to add. 

When I tried, I was able to integrate it with Jira, then CI/CD, et cetera. There have been advancements in the functionalities of more activities. I'd rate the ability to integrate with other products seven out of ten. 

The product has helped us to reduce maintenance by 40% or 50%. It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine. It's pretty advanced for testing all of the functionalities and we've seen some recent advancements and improvements in UiPath. 

I don't rate its ability to automate very well. There are other tools that are doing great work. For example, Selenium is a product that does absolutely tremendous work with test automation. It provides continuous integration and improvement with different technologies and tools. I'd rate Test Suite as 6.5 out of ten in terms of its automation capabilities.

Not many organizations would be willing to use UiPath as it would be an additional tool and the majority of organizations already are using Selenium or other automation tools. 

It's difficult at times. 

The adaptability of the solution could be better. 

You cannot use UiPath Test Suite as a silo product. You would need to use it in relation to their products.

I've been using the solution for two and a half years.

UiPath is not a new tool. It is mature. It's ramped up over the years to a great extent. It's great with basic automation as well as document understanding.

We've received direct support from UiPath and they were able to provide good guidance on how to deal with multiple products and they were able to provide access to tools as needed. 

Positive

We did not previously use a different test automation tool. 

Selenium is one of the other major products we evaluated. It's used in many organizations. I've used it in an organization I worked at as well. The other organization was much more focused on Selenium.

We have not witnessed the solution reduce the total cost of testing. We haven't looked into that aspect.

I'd rate Test Suite six out of ten. 

If we are trying to test code, we do it with Selenium. I'd recommend Selenium for that. It might be difficult to do with Test Suite.