Webex Meetings with AT&T Reviews

We were using the Webex training platform, but that has been phased out, so now it's Webex Meetings. We are primarily using Webex for virtual instructor-led training courses, but we also use it for meetings. Our courses usually involve video presentations, and the class sizes are about 10 to 20 people. 

Having Webex has been crucial for maintaining our training programs during COVID. In the past, we conducted all of our instructor-led courses in person, but travel was not an option, and expense was an issue. 

Utilizing Webex enabled us to conduct courses and issue certifications that we offer. It also extended classes being held at one Marine Corps installation to others who could participate regardless of where they were located.

We appreciate how Webex integrates with our system. When an employee completes a course, Webex documents it and updates the employee's training records.

There are definitely times when the sound becomes a bit unclear, and latency is also an issue. If there are too many people on video simultaneously, the whole system can slow down. The group breakout rooms are still somewhat rough around the edges. I would like to see them improve that feature so we can have more interaction in our classes.

I have been using Webex for about four or five years. 

The stability has varied during the time that we've been using it. We bought it for the training features that allow us to create break-out groups. the Training Module was short-lived, so we transitioned to Webex Meeting. The process of going from Webex Training to Webex Meetings was somewhat unstable. It wasn't intentionally a bait-and-switch, but we were looking forward to the Training Module, and they phased that out.

We have a user base of 12,000, and it has worked out well for us so far. This is how we train folks in our organization. We hold classes all the time with Marine Corps installations around the world utilizing the product. There are around 17 different Marine Corps installations holding a couple of classes daily with 20 or fewer participants, so that gives you a sense of the scale.

I have never had to use Webex support. 

This is the first virtual meeting solution we've used.

I wasn't involved in the setup, but I don't think it was complex based on what my coworker said. 

Webex made it fairly painless to transition to offering instructor-led courses worldwide during the pandemic, so we definitely saw a return on that investment. 

We don't offer all the same courses at every Marine Corps installation unless they're compliance courses. With Webex, we can publish all the courses offered at Marine Corps headquarters versus Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune, so somebody at Camp Lejeune can take a Webex class at Camp Pendleton. That wasn't possible in the past.

We pay for an annual license. The Webex license was cheaper than others we evaluated at the time, but I'm not sure if that's true today. There were some additional costs associated with integrating Webex with our learning management system. 

I evaluated Adobe Connect and a few others. There were challenges getting approval for using Adobe Connect, and it cost more than Webex. 

I rate Webex Meetings six out of 10. It's a good product but a bit cumbersome to use. I think Adobe is a little easier. You should consider your long-term plans before you buy the product, and buy something that's a bit more tested. We bought the Webex training platform the first or second year it came out, and it didn't last.

I mostly use this solution for meetings, interviews, or technical discussions.

The most valuable features for me are its stable connection, user-friendly interface, and screen-sharing files. Cisco's support is also very valuable.

The features I think can be improved are integrations with third-parties; for example, Microsoft 360 and other shared folders.

In the next release, I'd like to see them make more integrations.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a six, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. We have over 100 users.

I would rate the technical support of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup process a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being difficult and 10 being easy. The deployment took two minutes.

We can definitely say there was a return on this investment, especially during the pandemic. I would say 40% or more has been saved.

I would rate their pricing plan an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would strongly recommend this solution to other people.

Overall, I would rate this product a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We initially started the virtual meetings at AT&T with an internal solution,and then many new players came into the market, like XOAM and Skype. We evaluated the solution and what we currently manage and decided to keep Webex Meetings with AT&T as our main tool.

During meetings, the feature of closed captioning, scripting, and recording was convenient for keeping minutes and making available the information discussed to review meeting minutes. Also to keep track of all the agreements and discussions during those meetings. It worked well with our email systems and other communication services integrated into the functionalities.

Webex came as the top player on the market. Zoom had a learning curve to start using, and I didn't feel Zoom was very industry-oriented. It was more for personal use and then became more business-focused. But in the end, I don't think it met the requirements that businesses and companies needed.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

It was straightforward for us to implement and have the whole company use the tool. So productivity was not affected by any learning curves that could jeopardize how people used it. 

Pricing is very competitive because it didn't change much since they were already in the market when other players came in.

I would recommend it since it was easy for us to use and integrate. The easy installation and the capabilities to expand and manage many users were top priorities in making the decision and recommendation. 

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

We primarily used the solution to handle meetings and training.

It was very simple to use. It made it simple for users to join, work together, and share screens. There wasn't a lot of difficulty in terms of usage. 

It's stable. 

It wasn't possible to draw on the screen when we were on calls or meetings. Some tools allow you to do this, and Cisco did not. We'd like to have this capability so we can draw attention to certain areas or information for all participants. 

It would be nice if there were more integrations available. 

There have been times when I entered a call, and I didn't know the person attending. It would be ideal if there was some sort of information about the person or the company, so I know who people are. Sometimes I attend meetings with three or four companies and there's no way to distinguish who people are. There needs to be clarity around that. 

We've been using the solution for the last 12 months or so. 

It's a stable solution. I haven't had issues with it. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I can't speak to the scalability. I've never tried to scale. 

More than 10,000 people were using it in my company. 

I haven't dealt with technical support as I never dealt with technical issues. 

We've recently changed from WebEx to Microsoft Teams. Microsoft has more integrations and more features. 

I can't speak to the initial setup. It was installed on my computer for me. I wasn't part of the process. 

I can't speak to the licensing cost. It's not an aspect of the solution I handle. 

We're customers of the solution. 

I'm not sure which version we were using. 

Overall, it is a good tool. I'd rate it ten out of ten. 

We use this solution for virtual meetings and video communications.

This solution is deployed on cloud.

It could be more secure.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

Installation was straightforward. I use both the browser application and mobile application. You can install the solution yourself.

I would rate this 8 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution but it depends on the user. Webex is one of the oldest on the market. Now, there are so many solutions available for virtual meetings.

I mainly use Webex Meetings for presentation purposes.

Webex Meeting's most valuable features are screen-sharing and remote access.

Webex Meetings could be improved with more collaborative features and an archive of information like appointments and discussions that can be shared with everybody.

I've been using Webex Meetings for over ten years.

Webex Meetings is stable.

I've also used Google Meet, which is easier to use than Webex.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Webex Meetings is more secure than Microsoft Teams or Google Meet and more organized than Teams. I would rate Webex Meetings as six out of ten.