NAVIGATING THE AUTOMATION LANDSCAPE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRICENTIS TOSCA, UIPATH, AND AUTOMATION ANYWHERE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Automation technologies have become essential in accelerating digital transformation and enhancing operational efficiency across industries. This study presents a comparative analysis of three leading automation platforms—Tricentis Tosca, UiPath, and Automation Anywhere—focusing on their core capabilities, usability, integration potential, scalability, and cost-effectiveness. By evaluating both Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and test automation features, the research offers a holistic view of how these tools support diverse business needs and automation strategies. The methodology integrates qualitative and quantitative data from vendor documentation, expert insights, and real-world case studies to provide an objective assessment. The findings highlight the strengths and limitations of each platform, offering practical recommendations to help organizations select the most suitable automation solution aligned with their goals and industry requirements. This analysis contributes to a better understanding of the evolving automation landscape and aids in informed decision-making for successful implementation.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
References
Willcocks, L. P., Lacity, M., & Craig, A. (2017). Robotic Process and Cognitive Automation: The Next Phase. SB Publishing.
Moffitt, K. C., Rozario, A. M., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2018). Robotic process automation for auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-52088
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kedziora, D., & Kiviranta, H.-M. (2018). Digital business value creation with Robotic Process Automation (RPA) in Northern and Central Europe. Management, 13(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.13.161-174
Geyer-Klingeberg, J., et al. (2018). Process mining and Robotic Process Automation: A perfect match. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2196, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-022-00553-8 (Note: original conference version cited in Hägner 2020)
Leshob, A., Bourgouin, A., & Renard, L. (2018). Towards a process analysis approach to adopt Robotic Process Automation. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 15th International Conference on e Business Engineering (ICEBE 2018), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEBE.2018.00018
Ratia, M., Myllärniemi, J., & Helander, N. (2018). Robotic Process Automation – Creating value by digitalizing work in the private healthcare? In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference (pp. 222–227). https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275129
Alégroth, E., Feldt, R., & Kolström, P. (2016). Maintenance of automated test suites in industry: An empirical study on visual GUI testing. In Proceedings of the 2016 Industrial Software and Testing Conference (pp. 22–29).