We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution is easy to use and easy to apply."
"The entire backend system structure is something that I found really valuable."
"The solution has very good processes. It's very easy to deploy and has good reviews on it. It offers good automation and the solution has very good developers working on it."
"From a solution standpoint, screen capture and tight integration with Outlook are valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the rapid deployment of multiple bots."
"The ability to drag and drop various components and the customizability are good features."
"Automation Anywhere has good document extraction features where it can learn patterns."
"They recently released the newest version that has a good program flow, quality, and blueprints that are all good improvements to the automation. They also have good integration with SAP."
"It removes the burden of having to do some tasks manually. However, we are just using it in production for a single project. It saves us a lot of time in terms of extracting that information. So far, it has made a big impact."
"It is a one stop solution for automating process. The modular way that is assigned and works together follows a certain logic, and it encompasses a wide range of processes in a very structured and logical manner."
"The way Jiffy.ai integrates into existing infrastructure has been great for us. Our company is pretty stringent when it comes to cyber security and integrating with our apps... We've definitely had very strong scrutiny over this platform and this work, and even within that, it's been really successful at being able to integrate."
"With the customization option, we can write custom expressions using its compatibility with Python or other programming languages."
"The most valuable feature is the computer vision or OCR. That has a lot of use cases in real life. A lot of man hours can be saved, as we've seen in the finance processes... The feedback I have gotten from the team is that the OCR is quite powerful."
"The biggest driver was the cost savings. We wanted to improve productivity and save costs. Therefore, we gave most of the mundane tasks currently being done by a human to a bot. Some of the mundane tasks were reading invoices and keying in the data. We are talking about 15,000 documents every day. That is a huge volume that needs a lot of people. With the bot, it is just a fraction of the cost, because there is a huge savings in terms of manpower."
"The stability needs to be improved."
"I would like to have access to self-service support."
"The solution doesn't have support like they used to. They need support. We have personnel of our own, but sometimes we need assistance beyond our own team."
"I would definitely be wanting to see OCR features for improving the solution."
"There should be more support for developing in environments such as Citrix and Linux."
"I would like to be able to access BotForm using a mobile app."
"I would like to see more process mining features to give us insight into them before we develop automation."
"The new version is not very stable. Sometimes I can't use the recording sound."
"Initially, in version 3, Jiffy.ai did not have support for containerization. In our environment, we are heavy users of containers and container illustrators. So, the initial deployment option was running based on individual hosts that we deployed in the cloud. That created a singularity in the way that we deployed services in our system."
"The solution has just not closed the gap of being accessible to non-IT users. If you are a non-IT person, then this all looks like gobbledygook. Maybe that is something that can be improved upon."
"I believe this is also being addressed, but a lot of the platform work, as we were putting in new versions or making some updates, was, ironically, very manual. It's improved greatly, but I would imagine that's an area that they're probably still working on, on the backend, to help when it comes to what we need to do for platform support."
"When using UiPath automation, we could just Google issues if we were stuck with something. In the initial days with Jiffy.ai, we could not get that type of information from Google because there wasn't much of a community."
"The UI or the UX has room for improvement. The approach for designing the workflow is not that straightforward. It's quite difficult."
"They are still new in the market. Or, at least, they are still a small player. They require a lot of improvement in terms of learning material as well as the community developers. If you compare Jiffy.ai to an established solution, like UiPath, you can go to YouTube and find a lot of learning material posted by UiPath, partners, and other people in the community. However, for Jiffy.ai, you won't find that available in the market. Because of this it is very hard for us to find talent in the market. Most of the developers in the market are used to the bigger players. For Jiffy.ai, if you search a resume because you are trying to find someone who has used Jiffy.ai, you won't be able to find it. So, when we onboard a new person, we want them to learn this new system, but it is a bit hard for them to pick up because there are no external learning materials on the Internet."
"Pricing for this solution can be better."
"Our licensing costs are approximately $3,000 USD annually."
"The pricing model could be simplified."
"I think payment can vary but it's a re-occurring fee that needs to be paid every year."
"An unattended bot license costs around $5,000, whereas an attended bot license costs roughly $1,500."
"We pay approximately $15,000 USD per year."
"Licenses are paid on a yearly basis and the cost is quite high."
"It is too expensive and not worth the price."
"The pricing and license make sense. They have a model based on the concurrency of the workforce, which is very suitable in our case. The savings are great on the licensing cost."
"The licensing is not expensive; it is quite cheap. The expensive part is to support and maintain it. Understandably, we engage them to do a lot of work that could have been done by our own staff, if we had an RPA team. I wouldn't hold that against them. It is just that the cost of support is on the higher side for us."
"I like that it is very cost-efficient."
"If cost is of concern, then start with Jiffy. If cost is not your main concern there are a few premium products out there, but they come with a huge price tag."
"The pricing is quite competitive. As a small player in the market, they are quite aggressive in their pricing. With the features that they offer, it is quite worth the value."
BotFarm is the first and only enterprise-grade platform for Bots On Demand. Scale your workforce capacity by deploying bots anywhere in the world with a single click. Create, deploy and manage thousands of bots in an instant to meet demand spikes. BotFarm delivers on-demand RPA with scalability, elasticity, resilience – designed for the enterprise.
BotFarm is ranked 7th in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 28 reviews while Jiffy.ai Automate is ranked 10th in Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with 6 reviews. BotFarm is rated 7.8, while Jiffy.ai Automate is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BotFarm writes "Good customer support but some technical issues need to be addressed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Jiffy.ai Automate writes "One stop solution for automating a wide range of processes in a very structured, logical manner". BotFarm is most compared with Automation Anywhere (AA) and UiPath, whereas Jiffy.ai Automate is most compared with UiPath, Automation Anywhere (AA), Blue Prism Cloud and Microsoft Power Automate. See our BotFarm vs. Jiffy.ai Automate report.
See our list of best Robotic Process Automation (RPA) vendors.
We monitor all Robotic Process Automation (RPA) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.