Am I the only one who finds UKG's interface confusing for basic tasks?

I must begin by stating that my initial hypothesis—that a platform of UKG's scale and market penetration would prioritize intuitive, task-oriented navigation—has been thoroughly disproven during our evaluation period. As someone who conducts structured side-by-side comparisons, I designed a series of basic task workflows for common HRIS functions (e.g., updating employee personal information, approving a time-off request, running a simple headcount report) across three platforms. UKG consistently required the highest number of clicks and presented the most cognitive friction.

My confusion stems not from a lack of complexity in the underlying HR processes, but from the interface's apparent dissociation from user workflows. The navigation seems to be structured around the *system's* internal modular architecture rather than the *user's* goals. For instance:
* The separation between "Pro" and "Dimensions" feels like navigating two distinct applications, with inconsistent menu layouts and terminology.
* Locating a specific configuration setting often requires knowing its precise categorical home (e.g., which module it resides under) rather than being discoverable via a coherent search or a logical, process-based menu tree.
* Common tasks lack clear, linear paths. Initiating a basic report or approval often involves backtracking from a central dashboard into a sub-module, then to a secondary list, before the action item is even visible.

This has tangible impacts on efficiency and adoption. During our controlled tests, new users took approximately 40% longer to complete benchmarked tasks in UKG compared to competitors like Workday or even SAP SuccessFactors. The training burden increases proportionally, and the risk of user error on simple tasks is non-trivial, which is concerning in a domain where data accuracy is paramount for payroll and compliance.

I am particularly interested in hearing from others who have conducted similar comparative analyses or managed migrations. Is this a common experience, or indicative of a need for a more tailored implementation? From a revenue operations perspective, I'm also assessing the downstream impact: how does this interface complexity affect the reliability and setup of integrations (e.g., UKG to Salesforce or to a financial system) and the accuracy of synced data? If the source system's navigation is opaque, it increases the likelihood of misconfigured integration points.