UiPath Test Suite Reviews

We use UiPath Test Suite to test the workflows designed in UiPath Studio.

UiPath Test Suite helps to automate our web applications and desktop applications. It is easy to automate tests from a wide range of technologies.

UiPath Test Suite helps to test the automation of the application that we have created. We can check whether we are getting the expected results.

Previously, we used to do manual testing by running the processes one by one and making a note of each test case. By using UiPath Test Suite, we have a test framework. In that framework, we can use some conditions. Based on the conditions, we can check whether the workflow is executed successfully or not. The UiPath Orchestrator also has a feature to get a screenshot of the error message.

UiPath Test Suite has definitely saved costs and time. I do not have the metrics, but in general, manual testing of a normal process would take us about 5 days, and with UiPath Test Suite, we can complete the same in three days.

Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable. 

The integration of UiPath Test Suite with other UiPath products is easy.

We have output arguments in the workflow. We are able to check results only by using those arguments. It would be better to have some more options, such as screen variables. For example, in a workflow, if we want to check if an activity is present inside, we should be able to get the output to UiPath Test Suite through the activity itself. That would be great for testing.

I have been working with UiPath Test Suite for 3 years.

It is very stable. I would rate it an 8 out of 10 for stability.

Sometimes the server might not be accessible during peak hours. There might be a lag, and the unattended bots would not run. It could give us a failure status. This issue is related to server maintenance from our side. We then talk to our IT team to increase the bandwidth on the server.

I would rate it a 6 out of 10 for scalability. They provide updates once a year or twice a year. In those updates, some of the activities that we have already developed might go missing. Their developers should concentrate on the older versions of the activities that they are developing.

Their support is great. I would rate them a solid 9 out of 10. We generally get a response on the same day for the ticket. We sometimes schedule a call with the UiPath team so that we can show them the issue because we cannot share confidential information through emails.

Positive

We were not using any similar solution previously. We were testing manually. We were running the workflow in the same way as an attended bot.

It is deployed on a private cloud. Its initial setup is straightforward. We just need to connect it from the UiPath Orchestrator to UiPath Studio, which is on Windows. It takes 30 to 40 seconds. It is just a connector.

It does not require any maintenance from our side.

I deployed it myself.

I am not aware of the exact cost. It seems reasonable, but it is an additional cost. 

We did not evaluate other options.

Overall, I am satisfied with UiPath Test Suite. Anyone can learn how to use it. There are a few tutorials on the UiPath Academy. By using those tutorials, anyone can easily use UiPath Test Suite.

I would rate UiPath Test Suite a 7 out of 10.

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 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 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 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 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 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.