Automation Anywhere Co-pilot functions similarly to BPM because one user forms and triggers the bot, which works in the background, then shows a message to other departments for approval. It is very predictable and used in many companies. However, in Pakistan, many departments use BPM instead of Automation Anywhere Co-pilot, so they are not utilizing Automation Anywhere Co-pilot.

I am an expert in Automation Anywhere because I develop automation scripts and use IQ Bot for design workflow and process design. Automation Anywhere is very comfortable for any developer to use RPA tools.

Automation Anywhere has citizen developer capabilities. When we develop a bot, the RPA is low-code, no-code development, making it very easy for business developers to use.

AARI is a bot tool that is easy to develop. As an Automation Anywhere Co-pilot developer, I can say that it basically integrates many bots in one platform. It is used by business developers to connect different departments, making it very accessible to automate processes.

Automation Anywhere is not difficult to upgrade because we have bot scripts. When we upgrade, the bot scripts remain unchanged, so there is no difficulty.

Automation Anywhere is very scalable when used on-premises rather than in the cloud. It is used in banking environments, and many large banks across different countries use Automation Anywhere, which demonstrates its scalability.

Automation Anywhere's scale level involves a discovery bot. We use their bots, allowing us to easily scale our bots and maintain proper logging.

Before Automation Anywhere, I worked on Power Automate, but since it is a cloud platform, it was not suitable for banking systems in Pakistan as they do not use cloud computing.

As an RPA consultant who has purchased many licenses and evaluated numerous tools, I recommend Automation Anywhere because it integrates easily with AI and Power BI tools for reporting and discovery bot capabilities, allowing proper log control.

Automation Anywhere uses rule-based access where only admins and developers can access the code. Citizen developers or business users cannot see the code due to rule-based access.

They offer unique features such as hybrid bot capability, which supports both attended and unattended bots on one platform, setting it apart from other tools.

For rule-based tools, I recommend RPA. For unstructured data and predictions, AI is more suitable. For chatbots and different models, Gen AI is appropriate. As an RPA developer, I work with three modes: OCR for AI integration, and chatbot integration, such as Watson in IBM RPA for Gen AI applications.

We are using Automation Anywhere majorly for automation, automating web applications or desktop applications.

The best features of Automation Anywhere include the user interface, which is quite easy to use now compared to its previous versions that were more difficult. The interface is user-friendly, and all code is visible during coding, showing what is going ahead and what follows in the code. This is not available in other RPA tools such as UiPath, which makes it a standout feature.

Additionally, Automation Anywhere is robust and the support is good. We get connected with the support team whenever required.

Co-Pilot is used for the processes involving human input while automating tasks. In the context of Automation Anywhere, it allows us to create various forms to facilitate this interaction. By incorporating user feedback during the automation process, we can streamline operations effectively. Overall, using Co-Pilot is straightforward and user-friendly, making it easy to build automations based on the forms we create.

There are several areas for improvement in Automation Anywhere that have been suggested by my team and colleagues during their Imagine event. They need work on WLM and when handshaking with their own application, as there is significant wiring required from a developer perspective. The WLM could be much easier and more understandable. It should be more accessible to developers because in the WLM, if a solution is developed, it cannot be tested in the dev environment. Testing must be done in the runner environment.

From a developer's perspective, there are fewer integration facilities, particularly AI integrations, compared to other tools. The pricing could also be improved.

Automation Anywhere has been in use for about nine years.

The stability of Automation Anywhere can be rated a nine out of ten. It is good.

In terms of scalability, there have been no significant issues. Hundreds of bots have been developed without facing any problems. The scalability can be rated a nine out of ten.

In my current organization, 10 to 15 employees are working with Automation Anywhere. The larger team in other RPA department are using UiPath.

They often provide good solutions, but sometimes they are unable to resolve issues, requiring users to find solutions independently, which can be time-consuming. I would rate their technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We are using it as a SaaS solution. If we choose an on-premises solution, we receive a bundle that we need to install. This installation can be done on Azure, any cloud service, or on our own server machines. On the other hand, when we opt for a SaaS solution, they create control rooms and set everything up for us. We are only given an access key, or what could be referred to as a license key. By entering this license key, we can directly access the system. We can typically receive the license key quickly, often within a minute, for their cloud version. That's what I know about these solutions.

It requires some maintenance, but they are actively addressing it. They install patches and provide updates for the package versions. As a user of the SaaS solution, we don’t need to worry about these details. However, for the on-premises version, I believe users need to manually implement the solutions. Whenever there are updates or new package versions available, they deliver them to us, and we must install them in the control room.

Upgrading Automation Anywhere is very straightforward. It requires just clicking a button to upgrade multiple components including packages, solutions, control rooms, and the bot engine.

Regarding bot maintenance, if there are no changes in the web application or desktop application and no machine issues, bots can run for three to four years without human intervention.

The time saved by implementing Automation Anywhere depends on the number of applications involved. With fewer applications, it can save up to 40% to 50% of time. However, with complex applications involving multiple pages and interactions, the savings shift toward FTE savings, with time savings reducing to 10% or 20%. Sometimes it may take longer than manual user operations.

The pricing of Automation Anywhere is less than UiPath but more than Power Automate, placing it in the mid-range. It can be considered expensive and could potentially be lowered.

When comparing with other automation tools such as Power Automate and UiPath, all tools address similar problem statements but with different approaches. Each has unique features and limitations.

Technical skills are essential for RPA. If you know any programming language and have some technical understanding, you will find it easier to get into RPA. However, if you lack knowledge of programming languages, it may be challenging for you. Learning RPA involves keeping up with new features and updates, so we are continuously learning the platform. It took me about one to two months to fully understand how to complete a process on my own.

I would rate it a six out of ten. They can refine their pricing and improve the handshaking features and integrations. 

We are using it for backend office processes for FinanceOps.

By implementing this solution, we mainly focused on automating manual tasks such as invoice processing, reconciliations, and data entry, which are very rule-based. The automation worked effectively.

The core RPA capability is valuable. We have completed many automations. Removing manual tasks has been beneficial. It works effectively. We are still trying to determine how things will change after the GenAI introduction. It saves time and costs.

They should improve process discovery features.

They advertise that they do UI automation and things will be stable. However, when we performed user interface automation, things were not very stable. They need to make API integration much simpler with the target application so that automations are more scalable and stable.

I have been using Automation Anywhere for nine years.

Stability depends on multiple factors including developer expertise. Some automations have been very stable while others were not, possibly due to developer implementation or target application issues. The platform is not very smart to perform self-maintenance.

Scalability is good. If you create a good solution, you can scale effectively. However, scalability is very dependent on the developer's skill, not just the platform's capabilities.

In the earlier version, when we reached out with problems, they would often respond that features were not yet implemented or acknowledge known bugs that would be revised in the next upgrade. We hope this has changed in the Cloud version.

Neutral

It was already deployed when I joined the company. 

The upgrade was extremely challenging. Moving from version 11 to Cloud took considerable time. The migration from V10 to V11 was difficult, and V11 to Cloud was even more challenging. We hope the Cloud version will make future transitions easier since it's not on-premises.

With the cloud platform, we don’t require much maintenance. However, the bots we create do need significant maintenance. The time required for maintenance varies. Some automations are very stable, while others may not be due to issues with the developer’s execution or the quality of the target application. It's not Automation Anywhere's fault, but the platform itself isn't very adept at performing self-maintenance.

There was no return on investment in the last year. The year before that showed a significant return on investment, primarily because we automated many manual processes. Once the low-hanging fruits were completed, finding a return on investment became more difficult.

The solution is costly and the licensing is very confusing.

Earlier, the pricing structure was much simpler. A developer license cost a specific amount, and a runtime license had a separate price. Now, there are only two main figures to consider, in addition to distinct costs for cloud platform maintenance and other services. However, with the introduction of tools like Co-Pilot, things have become more complicated. If you use Co-Pilot, there’s an additional cost associated with it. Moreover, if you utilize AI features within Co-Pilot, there are AI token costs that differ from the standard licensing fees. Therefore, when you're creating a use case that involves Co-Pilot, a runtime license, and GenAI, it can get quite confusing.

The platform is moderately complex - not very complex but not super easy. Building scalable solutions requires significant time investment. The platform is not very user-friendly for people without technical experience. We don't encourage business users to develop anything on Automation Anywhere. 

I appreciate the core RPA capability, but the additional platforms they are adding currently are not mature enough. 

I would rate Automation Anywhere a seven out of ten.

The main objective of using Automation Anywhere is revenue cycle automation and our tie-ins with the hospital allow us to work in different parts of the revenue cycle. It specifically automates either patient info collection, Medicaid submission, and similar tasks. It is all contained within the revenue cycle, which represents the main services we provide to our clients.

What I appreciate the most about Automation Anywhere is that the tool is very robust. It can handle buttons moving around and any elements changing. It makes the process super easy to maintain and, in terms of tracking failures, it is improving. It is very good for new websites, identifying elements effortlessly.

My main issue with Automation Anywhere might be the logging of bots and getting more detailed feedback of what my bot is doing, step by step. It is hard to track fine-tuning in larger codes.

I have been using Automation Anywhere for maybe a year and a half to two years now, or rather I have been using it since I joined.

Automation Anywhere definitely allows us to provide more reliability and affirmation to the client. For every client we successfully automate, it is a checkmark in our book to show that we have a huge skill set of bots and different capabilities.

Having them operational month-to-month and reporting that they work is a very good confidence booster, especially with smaller hospitals when this is the only grant they can invest in. Once development is done, the bot is relatively stable. It does have some discrepancy with older websites but performs really well with all new websites, current revenue cycle automation, or any submissions we have to do. It reduces the pressure of maintenance significantly because even with numerous website changes, the maintenance becomes negligible for us.

When bringing Automation Anywhere, we were trying to solve the time taken in these processes for hospitals. We aim to improve how fast they can charge their insurance or patients, ensuring they hit their revenue targets. We are expanding into other fields, still centered within healthcare. Having these small working components and consistent bot performance brings in the next client, which is a significant goal for us.

In my company, I have not used another product that does the same as Automation Anywhere, but I have studied and used UiPath briefly. That was about two and a half to three years ago.

When bringing Automation Anywhere, we were trying to solve the time taken in these processes for hospitals. We aim to ensure we can improve how fast they can charge their insurance or patients, making sure the revenue part is properly managed as that is what we are ensuring they hit.

Our team is based on two engineers and one team lead.

For every client we successfully automate, it is a checkmark in our book to show that we have a huge skill set of bots and different things to accomplish.

Regarding the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of the Automation Anywhere platform, I have limited experience in answering as I do not represent the company in this aspect. From what I have heard from my team, the basic pricing seems to work for us.

For larger scaling pricing of other features, we need to bring in more clients and a larger volume to justify the potential cost of the license. Every automation license is specific for each hospital since we cannot share files or security due to HIPAA compliance requirements. Currently, we are able to bring in clients in the current price range, though it is becoming more challenging.

We are among the smaller scale clients for Automation Anywhere. The AI component is something we are still not utilizing much because it is difficult to justify the license cost to our clients. In the healthcare sector, there is hesitation to implement AI due to security concerns and a preference for manual processes during their initial step into automation.

A-People platform is particularly helpful for discussions and finding solutions to issues. The support team provides regular updates and maintains good communication even in uncertain scenarios. The platform has a growing repository of answered questions, similar to resources available for other programming languages.

We use OCR extensively, particularly for older websites and legacy systems where button identification is challenging. We have three active builds in production using only OCR, which demonstrates the robustness of the system.

On a scale of 1-10, I would rate Automation Anywhere 7.5 to 8. While I might rate it slightly lower as a developer who works with it daily, most of my team would likely rate it 8.5 to 9 because it effectively meets our needs and critical client requirements.

There are many use cases. It is simple to automate tasks or processes related to the active cycle for invoices and similar tasks. It is useful for automating processes in industries like manufacturing and banking. The use cases are correlated with the needs of the customers.

By implementing Automation Anywhere, customers are simply trying to have a more standardized process. For example, there is a better quality of data for manual inputs in various applications. They have more rapid processes, and they can free people from repetitive tasks. These are the most common situations that we solve with this technology.

We have not had any big problems with the technology. We have achieved the results that the customer expected. We are usually able to achieve the expected ROI with the processes of the project.

Automation Co-Pilot helped increase productivity. For employees, it was quite good. I did face some problems with the user interface that we had to build to interact with the user. There were some blocks in this interface that were hard to understand. From a business user's perspective, it is quite easy to use. From a technical perspective, it is a little bit harder to build a bot using the Co-Pilot features.

It helped to free up staff to work on other projects. Every time we automate a task, we are freeing user time. They have more time to focus on more complex tasks. They can achieve better results in terms of compliance of the data that they are inputting into the systems. The data is accurate and reliable, and they can do more in less time. They can easily meet timelines for various processes.

In terms of integration, we could integrate the pretty old type of browser web applications without many problems. We usually use various ERPs, such as SAP, Oracle, or NetSuite. We sometimes integrate by using APIs. We have Google Drive or Microsoft Teams folders, SharePoint, and so on. We integrate pretty much everything with Automation Anywhere. For some technologies, there are some libraries for integration, such as for Salesforce or ServiceNow, and for some other platforms, you have to build it yourself.

It is easy to understand how to use the tool. For a developer, it is very easy to understand the opportunities and how to use and learn these features. It is very business-oriented. It is very easy to understand the capabilities and the features that you can use. You should have a technical overview and a technical understanding, but it is easy to understand. A non-technical person can learn it in a month. However, this person must be involved with a technical team. A person cannot understand the implications of using this technology and its architecture on his own. A business person can learn to develop some features but to move to the next level, a business person would need some help from IT.

The main problem that I have with Automation Anywhere is the support. When I have problems that I cannot solve by myself, it is hard to achieve a good result with support. Language is another issue. From a technological perspective, I have not had many issues with Automation Anywhere, but the support is somewhat lacking compared to other technologies I use.

There are times when I have some problems with the cloud. I sometimes experience errors with the Co-Pilot feature that make me feel the system is not 100% stable.

It is able to provide automation at scale. This is one of the best features of Automation Anywhere, but if you want to scale, you need technical support.

Its usage depends on the customers. We have different types of models, but usually, it is used at an enterprise level.

It is hard to achieve a good result with their support team. The support in Europe seems to be receiving less investment, so I usually cannot have support in my language. For some customers, this can be a problem. Some customers speak Italian rather than English. 

Neutral

We have more customers on the cloud than on-premises. I am personally not involved in the deployment, but the initial setup is straightforward. It is not complex. Upgrading Automation Anywhere is easy.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the number of automated processes. For 20 automated processes, you might need one person full-time per month. This can vary a lot on the type of process that you have automated.

You have to work at least a year on that technology, but obviously, it depends on the effort you make. If you have one developer or five, it makes a difference.

It is reasonable, but it can always be a little bit cheaper.

Those who want to use Automation Anywhere should have at least one expert on their team. This can significantly speed up the implementation process and the understanding of the problems. It can be a game changer. 

Overall, I would rate Automation Anywhere a seven out of ten.

As a consultant, I have worked with various clients, including banks, insurance companies, healthcare providers, and different tech companies. Each company has distinct use cases. RPA tools are capable of automating any task. We usually automate processes that are repetitive. Automation is always rule-based.

Co-pilot certainly makes the job easier if the client has a subscription. It allows me to analyze desktop flows and activities and create flows using natural language. Natural language processing using LLMs has become an integral part of IT. This tool lets me create flows using natural language, repair automation errors, and answer product-related questions. It is there to assist us in creating automation tests, CI pipelines, etc.

There are many areas for improvement, especially in the developer environment. Providing a desktop version rather than focusing on the cloud is essential. Only UiPath offers a studio environment for desktop application development. Automation Anywhere lacks a desktop version and is solely web-based and cloud-based.

Automation Anywhere is not so easy for business users who are not technical. It is at the medium level. UiPath also provides UiPath StudioX to enable business users to automate easily.

I have used Automation Anywhere for four years. I have also used UiPath for four years.

The support is good. I have faced difficulties with every RPA tool. Automation Anywhere has a good support system but has room for improvement. UiPath has a huge online community for support. They have a lot of active users.

Neutral

The solution we use depends on the client and their budget. 

UiPath is exceptionally more expensive than Automation Anywhere. UiPath is far ahead of its competition, but in terms of finances, Automation Anywhere offers better value and is more effective for organizations seeking cost-effective solutions. Small clients tend to go for Power Automate or Automation Anywhere, whereas large clients go for UiPath.

RPA solutions like UiPath, Automation Anywhere, Power Automate, and Blue Prism can be learned through their academies. When I graduated, I did not know what RPA was. I joined as an intern and was told to go to the academies for these solutions and do the courses. They have developer fundamental and RPA fundamental courses. They also have advanced-level courses of 30 hours, which are free of cost. It took me about two months to learn these solutions. I might have had an edge because of my technical background. For a non-technical person who is willing to put in two or three hours every day into learning, three to four months would be good to take themselves to a level where they can start developing automation at a medium scale. Complex automations happen from experience when you are working with different types of clients. Generally, two to four months is a good period for someone to get a grasp of RPA.

The focus is shifting from RPA to IPA or Intelligent Process Automation. For example, I have done automation for a website task. Previously, when the website changed, such as when a button was shifted, the automation would fail. With Intelligent Process Automation, the bot is intelligent enough to realize the changes that have occurred. It understands what my flow is and what I am trying to achieve. It is then able to modify itself in such a manner that it still works. This is something that RPA has been transitioning toward.

Overall, I would rate Automation Anywhere a seven out of ten.

First, I tried to automate the process for surface automation, and it was mainly in a Citrix environment. At that time, I think no proper solution or feature was available with Automation Anywhere. Then, I tried it for some web applications and Windows applications, and there it worked perfectly. 

It saves time. It has saved 4,000 to 5,000 hours for one large complex process. If we break it down, it has saved 1,000 hours per process. The time savings vary based on the complexity of the process.

It is simple to learn. It is straightforward. You can learn about Automation Anywhere from their university or YouTube. Lots of YouTube channels are there. They provide you with all the information you need. Non-technical employees would need one month to three months to learn it. It also depends on their grasping and learning skills.

With Oracle and ServiceNow, there seem to be challenges. With SAP, it worked very well. We first tried Automation Anywhere with Oracle but had to go for Blue Prism. With Oracle, Blue Prism was easier and a little bit more stable than Automation Anywhere. Even with ServiceNow, the automation was very unreliable. It did not work as expected.

Business users face difficulties with Automation Anywhere setup. As an administrator, even if I provide any license or features, they would not be able to use it on their local individual machines. The client sometimes does not work perfectly. There are difficulties when we install the Automation Anywhere client. It can be hard to know what is causing issues. They might have a different Java version or other software installed on their machines. Automation Anywhere clients sometimes need clean machines or virtual machines where we deploy the bots. Such difficulties are there, but it does not happen with just Automation Anywhere. I have also observed this problem with other solutions.

Automation Anywhere does not provide API integration. You have to design everything on your side. It does not have an inbuilt API tool like Postman. They do not provide a virtual interface to execute GET, PUT queries. It is very difficult in Automation Anywhere, but in other solutions, this feature is very good.

It is not stable with the Microsoft Edge browser. They have to develop or integrate lots of things. It used to work very well with Internet Explorer around five years ago, but Internet Explorer is gone now. People have moved to Microsoft Edge. If you are using Google Chrome, it is easy. With Microsoft Edge, sometimes processes fail, and you do not always know the reason. You have to debug it entirely.

I have been using it for a total of five years, but in between, I used other tools as well. Overall, it has been around two years with Automation Anywhere. I have used versions 10.2, 11.3, and 360, and a little bit of 2019 as well.

The product is overall stable. With lots of normal applications, you can use it without any issues. 

Automation Anywhere is 50% to 70% good in terms of scaling. For business users who want everything on their machines and do not want to use different virtual machines, it is not scalable. Management also worries about deployment costs.

I contacted their technical support. Their L1 support is just normal, and you can get that information on Google or YouTube. They do not have a solution a lot of times. Their L2 support is quite expert. They know how to address things that are happening, and they will try to understand and find the root cause.

Neutral

I am also using other RPA tools such as Blue Prism and UiPath, and I prefer them over Automation Anywhere. 

In API integrations, Automation Anywhere is way behind other tools because its interface is not simple to use for business users. If someone is using Automation Anywhere as the first RPA tool, they will understand it, but if they have used any other RPA tool in the market, they will feel the need to improve Automation Anywhere's UI and API integrations. Additionally, in the API integration part, companies are nowadays using scripting with SAP and others. Automation Anywhere can also improve in that area. 

UiPath's design structure is quite powerful and straightforward. It is easier to work with when you have a complex process with multiple load items. API integration is quite powerful. We can easily use that.

If you are deploying the client on a virtual machine, it is very simple and straightforward. If you are going to do it on a common machine for normal development purposes, it can be a bit complex if you are using other software on the same machine. 

Upgrading is easy. I have migrated some processes from versions 10 to 11, but the newer version requires some time and cost because sometimes the processes designed in the older versions cannot be migrated to the newer version. Instead of migrating, you can redesign the same process in the newer version. That would be better.

Usually, all developers are involved in the bot maintenance at a later stage. If only considering support and maintenance, you will require two people there. If your team has around ten to fifteen people, you will require two people for support.

Cost-wise, it is fine. A lot of medium businesses prefer Automation Anywhere. The development cost is also lower.

I would rate Automation Anywhere a seven out of ten.

There are two main use cases. We are working to complement their RPA capabilities. They have quite a strong position in the RPA market. Instead of trying to face them on the RPA market, we complete what they do. They are especially not good in the attended space. They are good in unattended but not in the attended space, so we kind of complement them.

The second thing we are working on with them is FortressIQ. Automation Anywhere has a task mining solution. We have a process mining solution, so it is a good completion. We have a product that is doing all the process mining stuff. When we need to investigate further into one precise process, dive a little bit into the details, and understand the number of clicks, the number of screens, and basically all the details of the process, we need a task-mining solution. That is where we have integrated with FortressIQ from Automation Anywhere.

The benefits include a reduction in tedious tasks and manual handling of tasks and time savings. This transition moves processes from several hours to a few minutes or even seconds, ensuring that money is saved. Furthermore, it secures the process, facilitates better execution, eliminates errors, and establishes a standard process, which is much more than just saving money.

The ease of use depends on what you want to do. What we do is quite simple because we are mainly using it from an unattended perspective, so we do not have any human interaction. With humans, you need to do a lot of error management. Automation is precise and simple. If the use case is A, B, and C, and you know how to treat A, B, and C, it will always be that, which is simple. If it is not A, B, or C, then you park it aside and do error handling. In the end, 98% of what you have done is good, and the remaining 2% will be manually handled. You still save about 98% of the time. It is quite easy to use as long as we stay in the unattended space. 

We mainly integrated it with non-SAP applications. It is not difficult to integrate Automation Anywhere in the workflow.

It is quite strong in the unattended space. 

I never use Automation Anywhere in the attended space because they are bad at that, at least compared to other players like us or UiPath.

I have been working with them for about four years.

I have not contacted them, so I cannot judge them.

Neutral

We are working with UiPath, Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere, and Power Automate. These are the four ones we are working with.

Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism are very close in terms of market perception, and they are very unattended-oriented. They are quite strong in the unattended space and are more IT-oriented than others, especially UiPath. They are strong in terms of integration.

In terms of ease of use, it is probably one of the best because they are doing a lot of screen scraping. It is more based on the screens and less on APIs, which makes sense from an unattended perspective. However, when you want to have human interaction, it could become a bit more difficult. It is a more techie product than others but also deeper in terms of what you can do with it in terms of integration, etc.

I do not think a perfect RPA tool exists. Overall, I would rate Automation Anywhere as a six out of ten. I would rate UiPath higher.