Skip to content
SlateIndex
AppsmithLow-code open-source application platform that simplifies custom application development
vs
UiPathBusiness orchestration and automation for AI agents, robots, and people
Comparison · Low-Code & No-Code · weekly run Nov 3

Appsmith vs UiPath

Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?

The short answer

Appsmith is the stronger AI pick in Low-Code & No-Code: it has a visibility score of 17.6 versus 2.4 for UiPath, and ranks ahead in 0% of the answers that name both.

Choose Appsmith if…

  • You want the brand AI engines rank higher (17.6 vs 2.4)
  • You want a lower entry price ($15 vs $25)
  • AI answers describe it more positively (48% vs 38% positive)
  • You need SOC 2 Type II coverage

Choose UiPath if…

  • You need a self-hosted or on-premises option
  • You need SOC 1 Type 2 or SOC 2 Type 2 or ISO/IEC 42001:2023 or ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or ISO/IEC 27017 or ISO/IEC 27018 or ISO 9001:2015 or HITRUST or HIPAA or C5 coverage
  • You prefer a larger, established vendor (1,001–5,000 employees)
  • Flat tiers pricing suits your budget better than per seat

AI visibility side by side

Latest weekly run · Nov 3

Metric Appsmith UiPath
Visibility score17.6%2.4%
Change vs last weekup+1.9%up+1.8%
Rank in Low-Code & No-Code#7#33
Share of voice4.2%0.6%
Mentions this run234
Positive in AI answers48%38%

The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.

Visibility score trend

Weekly runs over the last 60 days

0%25%50%75%100%Nov 2Nov 3Appsmith 18%

Appsmith +1.9000000000000021pp · UiPath +1.7999999999999998pp over 1 weekly runs.

Engine by engine

Appsmith leads on 3 of 3 engines

ChatGPT
18.1%
4.6%
AI Mode
25.7%
0%
Perplexity
8.9%
2.6%
AppsmithUiPath

Head to head in AI answers

2 engine answers name both brands

0Appsmith ranked higher
2UiPath ranked higher

Features, pricing & fit

DimensionAppsmithUiPath
Pricing modelPer seatFlat tiers
Entry priceFree; paid from $15 per seat / moFree; paid from $25 / mo
Free planYesYes
DeploymentSelf-hosted, cloud, or managed hosting; air-gapped edition as an add-onCloud (Automation Cloud, with regional or dedicated options) or self-hosted on premises, including air-gapped
ComplianceSOC 2 Type IISOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 2, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 27017, ISO/IEC 27018, ISO 9001:2015, HITRUST, HIPAA, C5
SupportCommunity support on Discord, Priority email and chat support on Business, 24x7 support with response time SLAs on Enterprise, Dedicated customer solutions engineer on EnterpriseBronze Support (Basic tier), UiPath Community Forum
Founded20192005
HeadquartersSan Francisco, CANew York City, NY, United States
Employees51–2001,001–5,000
FundingSeries B · $52M raisedIPO (NYSE: PATH) · $1970M raised
Best forDevelopers and engineering teams building internal apps, dashboards and admin panelsLarge enterprises and regulated industries that need agents, robots, and people governed on one platform

Plans side by side

Appsmith

Free$0month
Business$15user / month
Enterprise$2,500month for 100 users
Appsmith pricing

UiPath

Community$0free forever
Basic$25per month (starting at)
StandardCustomcontact sales
EnterpriseCustomcontact sales
UiPath pricing

Pros and cons

Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand

Appsmith

  • Open-source and free to self-host
  • Flexible approach with native JavaScript customization
  • Strong fit for internal tools, dashboards and admin panels
  • Favored by developers and technical teams
  • Transparent, predictable published pricing

    UiPath

    • Excellent for enterprise agentic automation blending RPA with AI decision-making
    • Fast implementation times compared with peers
    • Rated Exemplary by ISG
    • Strong for workflow automation, RPA, and complex business processes
    • Good for automating operational processes across multiple applications

      Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 98.8%·next run

      Cite as: SlateIndex, “Appsmith vs UiPath”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/appsmith-vs-uipath, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.