UiPath Test Cloud Reviews

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.

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 Test Suite for many types of testing, including origination, smoke, and web application testing. We are slowly migrating all of our test cases, but so far, we have primarily used it for our smoke and regression test cases. We mostly automate Windows .NET technologies. UiPath also works with web application frameworks like React, Angler, and Java. 

UiPath Test Suite helps us automate our testing. Other tools like Selenium require you to learn the language, or you need a specialist to write the scripts. With UiPath, we can automate manual testing using team members who are not that technical. It's easy to learn and requires no coding skills. So we were easily able to achieve our objectives.

Web applications are always easy to automate. The challenge is implementing or automating a Windows application, but we can do that successfully. UiPath Test Suite has freed staff to work on other projects. It's hard to quantify, but the initial time savings was high because it runs 24/7. One manual tester works 40 hours weekly, and we had four testers, so that's 160 hours. We can now complete the same work with around four hours of manual work. 

It's easy to integrate UiPath with other tools like Azure DevOps for running those bars and generating the test history. It also comes with out-of-the-box Jira integration. Hundreds of tools are available, and it integrates with most of the popular ones. Some tools, like Micro Focus Octane, don't have native integration, but UiPath has connectors for those.

UiPath has also reduced the time spent on maintenance. Otherwise, when we make changes, we need to test all the steps manually. We're progressing toward becoming fully automated, but it has cut maintenance time in half so far. 

Test Suite has multiple tools that are fully integrated. It has everything you need to record your test cases, generate your documentation, and integrate synthetic data with your Orchestrator. I like the integrated aspect of it. The biggest advantage of UiPath is that it not only tests but also integrates with all the other services to offer a complete package. 

Our primary application is built on Windows, so we've faced no significant challenges. However, I think mobile automation is one area where the solution still needs some work. 

I have used UiPath Test Suite for more than five years.

I rate UiPath support a 10 out of 10. They've been fantastic and are always there to help customers. 

Positive

We saw benefits from using UiPath Test Suite almost immediately. We did a proof of concept for about two weeks and put it into production

UiPath Test Suite is a cost-effective solution. Orchestrator is the most expensive UiPath module, costing around $20,000, but you don't need to purchase Orchestrator to use Test Suite. You can buy a nonproductive version that costs about $2,400. It's a better value than other products I've seen. 

I rate UiPath Test Suite a nine out of ten. We started with Test Suite, but now that we have UiPath in place, we can also automate our processes. That's UiPath's advantage. It isn't simply a testing solution. We have the option to scale up our test cases or automate other processes. It's one of the benefits of using an RPA tool for testing. 

UiPath has a few minor areas that need improvement like mobile testing, but they are constantly adding features like AI-driven functionality. I'm optimistic about the platform's potential. 

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.

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. 

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.

I work with the solution in order to automate tasks in our company. It works alongside our Jira product. We can coordinate with Python to automate tasks and use AI.

It's useful for automating tasks. We can automate alongside our UI. Manual testing takes too much time. For the business, it makes things much easier. 

The integration with solutions such as Jenkins. The ability of Test Suite to automate tests from a wide range of technologies is very good. We can automate anything. 

It's helped us free up staff time for other projects. The more we automate, the more time we can spend on fixing bugs.

Test Suite is great for integrating with other lifecycle tools and applications in our environment. We can integrate tests in our continuous pipeline - with Jenkins, for example. We can plug right into our pipelines and GitLab.

We've been able to reduce maintenance by integrating with maintenance solutions.

We have been able to save the time needed for testing.

The computation is very good. 

We'd like to see the solution integrate with more code or local frameworks. 

We'd like to see it work closer with AI. It would help enhance UiPath.

I've used the solution for two months. 

I do not have experience working with support. 

I have used other solutions, including Rubrik, in the past. UiPath allowed us to use it for testing and automating tasks. If a team member isn't good with programming, they can still use UiPath.

The initial setup was not complex. It was simple to deploy. We did a continuous integration strategy. We were able to deploy it quickly and easily.

There is some maintenance required after deployment. 

I've been able to find a way to work with UiPath without having to pay fees. 

It's a great tool, and AI can continue to enhance it. 

For those worried that their automation testing is too complex, I'd advise them that it would not be with UiPath. You should just understand the testing process in Jira and the RPA process. The tool will ensure simplicity. As long as you know the fundamentals of the test, UiPath can automate. It's not hard. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.