36Developers tested across 3 competing RPA platforms
~90%UiPath's average task completion, vs. ~40% for competitors
210→36Applicants screened to a vetted, experience-tiered sample
Problem: UiPath needed evidence, not assumptions, about how its developer experience actually compared to competing RPA platforms.
Outcome: A rigorous head-to-head study confirmed UiPath's usability edge while surfacing seven concrete, prioritized recommendations to close its remaining gaps.
Read the full case study
Project Brief
THINK Design ran a competitive usability study for UiPath, evaluating its RPA (robotic process automation) developer tool against two competing platforms. The goal was a SWOT-level understanding of UiPath's developer experience relative to the field: not just whether it was good, but specifically where it won, where it was vulnerable, and what to fix next.
My Role
I was the lead researcher on this study for THINK Design. I designed the moderated study protocol, facilitated participant sessions, and synthesized the cross-tool findings into the SWOT analysis and prioritized recommendations delivered to UiPath's product team.
Approach
Ran remote, one-on-one moderated sessions on Zoom; each participant worked in their assigned tool using a think-aloud protocol
Recruited 36 developers from 210 applicants (via job boards, community forums, and social channels), screened and tiered by experience level (beginner, intermediate, advanced), 12 per tool
Ran 4 standardized tasks per session (create, update, and share an automation), identical across all three tools for direct comparison
Collected post-session ratings across usability, usefulness, credibility, and desirability
Synthesized a cross-tool SWOT analysis, grounded in verbatim participant quotes
Key Findings
UiPath users completed Task 1 at more than double the rate of either competitor.
100% task completion: UiPath had the highest completion rate on every single task, including full completion on Task 1, versus under 60% for the closest competitor.
Most positive ratings for UiPath across usability, usefulness, and desirability, ahead of both competing tools.
One real opportunity: a competitor's newly released version actually rated higher on visual attractiveness, a specific, addressable gap for UiPath's interface.
The study's only 1/5 rating went to a competitor, tied to unfamiliarity with a recently released version, a reminder that new-version confusion can tank scores independent of underlying product quality.
Recreated summary of the study's SWOT synthesis for UiPath (condensed from the full analysis).
Recommendations
Offer multiple workbench views (list vs. flow view) to match different developers' mental models
Simplify orchestrator setup and troubleshooting: several participants needed a full system restart just to debug
Add contextual help directly inside the workflow builder, not just in external documentation
Close the visual gap between the product's interface and the broader brand's visual language
Recreated concept for the workbench-view recommendation, not an actual product screen.