NICE CXone Reviews

My use cases for NICE CXone involve migrating from a Cisco CUCM and CCX to NICE CXone, primarily for cost reasons, as Cisco had so many knobs and buttons that we really were not utilizing. NICE CXone was the solution that the business decided on, aiming for one pane of glass to reduce the various plugins and technologies used to monitor and operate the contact center. While it was missing a few things out of the box that we needed to customize with the implementation team and NICE support, the main goal was to achieve everything in one pane of glass, reduce cost, and provide ease of use for the contact center.

The valuable features of NICE CXone include the unified pane of glass that consolidates multiple plugins and technologies used to monitor and operate the contact center. The solution also provides ease of use and cost reduction compared to our previous Cisco deployment.

One of the things I dislike about NICE CXone is that during the evaluation process, it was promised that true omnichannel routing would be part of the product, but it turns out that was not necessarily the case. We ended up having to spend months working with support and implemented a few internal homebrew API and code to get it to function the way we wanted, which felt like a bit of false advertising. Although it worked out in the end, it still was not what was promised during the initial talks with the sales team.

I have been using NICE CXone for approximately two years.

I have seen minimal lagging, crashing, or downtime with NICE CXone, though there have been a few issues not specific to our environment, such as instances where recording has not worked for the entire platform. We communicated with our TAM, who kept us updated on broader issues affecting multiple users, so while it has happened, it has not been frequent.

In terms of scalability, NICE CXone is quite scalable, depending on your contract. For us, it was an issue when we signed up with around 300 seats, and a year later, we needed to downsize, which was somewhat challenging to adjust in the contract. While it is scalable, I cannot say it is user-friendly or easy, as there is often a price tag associated with those changes, which is to be expected, making it scalable but not preferable.

I have contacted NICE CXone's support, and the experience varies. The expert-level support was very good in resolving issues, typically within a 24-hour timeframe, while the basic support where we open tickets and follow up on their web GUI was decent, although there were times we needed to escalate through our TAM to speed things along. Overall, I would rate the support experience a seven out of ten.

I have used the Cisco suite prior to NICE CXone and considered quite a few alternatives, including all the competitors in the contact center space such as AWS Connect. Cost was a significant factor, along with features, and NICE CXone checked more boxes than the rest, making it the best choice for us at the time, even though it is hard to find a technology that perfectly meets every specific use case.

The initial setup of NICE CXone was straightforward and easy for our team, as the implementation team we worked with was very good at what they did. They provided us with a giant workbook to fill out, and they created the environment we needed in a timely manner, leading to a quick move with only a couple of months to get everything done. The cutover went well, making it a good experience, despite a few expected bumps along the way.

Overall, approximately six people were involved from our end in the implementation of NICE CXone. It took approximately six or seven months to fully set up NICE CXone from start to finish, especially with the extra features we had to implement.

I am not the correct person to comment in detail on the pricing of NICE CXone, but I know that we did end up saving quite a bit of money going from Cisco to NICE CXone, even though I am not sure of the exact amounts or percentages.

As far as maintenance for NICE CXone goes, not much is required from our end. I had a couple of times where I needed to adjust an IVR and tweak some of the routing that was not working correctly, along with fixing SIP trunking issues at one of our locations. However, we would receive notifications from the NICE team if patches were happening, and being a SaaS solution, there really is nothing we could do even if we wanted to, so there is no real maintenance on my team's end. I would rate this solution an eight overall.

We're working in the finance space, banking, and our customers that we support are primarily banks and remittance services. We are a contact center providing services to other businesses, primarily by phone, but we're currently looking at diversifying the channels with omnichannel support such as chat, email, and social media.

Some of the best features with NICE CXone are the real-time visibility that you have, which empowers you to make adjustments on the fly, such as turning on and off your queues and adjusting how we route calls to our agents.

We can monitor their activity in real time and manage the traffic as needed, flexing up by increasing the number of ports to ensure that none of our calls are dropped or reskilling our agents based on choices made in our IVR.

The reporting isn't bad, but there are opportunities for improvement; we get real-time dashboards for monitoring, though for performance management, we have to procure certain reports manually by pulling down raw data from the system, which could be better.

The reporting isn't bad, but there are opportunities for improvement; we get real-time dashboards for monitoring, though for performance management, we have to procure certain reports manually by pulling down raw data from the system, which could be better.

Regarding the pricing, this would be an area of opportunity as well; this feedback is based on where we're positioned in the Caribbean. Compared to challengers such as Zoom, which seem more cost-effective, NICE CXone's suite of products is very modular, so as they provide new services, you have to add to your existing package and this balloons your costs since there's an additional license needed to use the new tools, leading to potentially higher out-of-pocket expenses.

We've had experience with this product since 2020.

The response time can vary depending on the resource you need; they have 24-hour support for basic issues, but if the issue is network-related or involves configuration, or maybe implementing a new tool, it might take north of 24 hours to identify the right resource to assist you.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate their customer service or technical support about a six and a half.

Neutral

The solution I'm most familiar with is NICE CXone.

I really can't add any value about how it's influenced our customer journey just yet because we're just in the process of implementing that and have no data at this stage.

Overall, NICE CXone is not a bad product at all. There are some opportunities for improvement that could make NICE CXone a solid offering—it's a great tool that is very intuitive and doesn't give us much headache to use, but the support could improve. If they could address the issues I've mentioned, they would have a really nice product.

I rate NICE CXone a seven out of ten.

NICE CXone is used for contact center, call distribution, chat, email, and SMS messaging. There may be a business requirement to add a new chat channel for a new client that's coming up under a specific application, so we would gather requirements and get sign-off, build the solution and implement it into production.

The copilot features we've been using lately in NICE CXone are very good for summarizing interactions and for providing real-time guidance.

The copilot feature in NICE CXone has reduced a great deal of after-call work substantially through summarization. We've experienced improved response times since using NICE CXone as we've been streamlining processes. I have rough estimates that response times have improved by over a minute per call and time savings of over three minutes per call in after-call summarization.

The development tools in NICE CXone could be better, as there are some pain points. I would like to see a more JavaScript or C# native language interface in NICE CXone where you can do more programmatically with the development environment.

I've been using NICE CXone for about six years now.

I choose nine out of ten for NICE CXone because it's very good overall, but when there is a problem, the road to resolution is a little difficult to navigate.

Regarding NICE CXone's AI capabilities, I think their governance and security are very good, as they have FedRAMP for the federal government website and government interactions, so it's very secure in that end, and there's also plenty of security around each tenant.

NICE CXone's AI capabilities are excellent; I've only started touching upon these capabilities, but what I see is excellent so far, plus their interaction with market-leading AI companies is only going to make it better from what I can tell. My advice for others looking into using NICE CXone is to find some people that have used it before to help guide you into a good use case deployment. I would rate NICE CXone a nine out of ten overall.

We migrated to NICE CXone from another global UC solution provided by Cisco, and the main reason for that was that we wanted to move to a complete CCaaS solution. This meant we would not be doing any maintenance on the actual end product; we would just be developing the actual solution. We went through a long-winded migration plan because it consisted of migrating services from the UK, North America, and Costa Rica.

We had a series of contact centers in the United Kingdom, so we had to ensure that any new starters were in the correct teams and had the relevant permissions to access their interactions, because all our calls were recorded. That side of things made sure that everyone was onboarded correctly and they were in the correct teams, had the relevant skill sets, and the ability to access other NICE CXone components.

I found NICE CXone to be a very simplistic product overall to use, versus Cisco that was extremely complex to actually use. Everything was integrated very simplistically, whereas Cisco does not have their own call recording solutions. With NICE CXone, it was all integrated, and there were also various other applications, like the iX Workforce Management suite, and various other packages. The simplicity of actually using the product was really the main advantage.

Historically, when we were using Cisco, we had different vendors such as Calabrio, who used to provide call recording, whereas when we moved to NICE CXone, we had everything under the same umbrella. If we ever ran into difficulties, we did not get one vendor saying there was a problem with our UC platform, because NICE owned the whole product suite. I had also used the iX Workforce Management suite before NICE actually acquired it, so I knew that it was going to be a good product set, and we had generally very few issues with it.

It has made day-to-day operations much more simplistic, as we came from an environment with multiple different systems. Sometimes the reliability of those systems was not always great. With NICE CXone, we basically had no issues.

On the call recording side of things, when we used Calabrio, we were not maintaining 100% uptime. Some months, it was approximately 97-98%. With NICE CXone, we had very few total outages with regards to the interaction feature, which is the call recording side of things.

Some of the prompts occasionally come too quickly.

I used NICE CXone in a previous role for approximately two and a half years.

We had no issues with that aspect in the time that I was using the system.

We had no issues with the scalability of it.

There were no issues with the customer support.

We used Cisco.

On the call recording side of things, when we used Calabrio, we were not maintaining 100% uptime. Some months, it was approximately 97-98%. With NICE CXone, we had very few total outages with regards to the interaction feature, which is the call recording side of things.

NICE directly was managing everything.

There were no issues with the accuracy after a period of time.

We went through an RFP against Amazon AWS and also Genesys, and the feature set and the future roadmap was much better with NICE CXone.

I would really have a clear understanding of what features you actually want to be able to use, so you get value for money for your decision.

Because of the simplicity and the reliability, NICE CXone is a very nice, easy-to-use product. You are able to do a lot of the changes from a single webpage without the need to log into various different other platforms. The simplicity of the solution is the main advantage.

I would rate this review as a 9.

My main use case for NICE CXone is as a reseller. As a reseller, we provide NICE CXone to clients in the UK and Ireland. We are a partner of NICE, and we are a platinum partner of NICE in the UK, which enhances how we interact with NICE CXone.

The best features NICE CXone offers include integrations, flexibility, and a modern AI base that is built into the platform.

NICE CXone has an integrations hub with pre-built constructs that connect to most of the major third-party vendors, so out of the box, you can connect to Salesforce, HubSpot, and several other large enterprises, highlighting its flexibility.

NICE CXone has positively impacted our organization; we have managed to sell it 14 times in three years, resulting in 14 new logos we have sold on NICE CXone. The reasons for our sales success with NICE CXone were attributed to us being very good at what we do.

NICE CXone could improve with more integrations and a better approach to how they operate internally.

Some of the platform enhancements could be improved, as it takes a very long time to get features added into the platform. It would be beneficial if there were a way that we could expedite that as a partner.

I have been using NICE CXone for five years.

My advice for others looking into using NICE CXone is to make sure that you fully understand the packages and what is included with what you are buying. NICE CXone has many different packages and levels, but do not assume that you get everything. It is essential to investigate what you are getting and ensure it meets your requirements; if not, you can add them on.

People buying NICE CXone must review what you are buying; it is critically important that you understand the license model. I would rate this review as an 8 out of 10.

Positive

My main use case for NICE CXone is workforce management and workforce engagement.

One specific example of how I use NICE CXone for workforce management and engagement is to monitor quality assurance for our call recordings and customer experience interactions.

NICE CXone helps with monitoring quality assurance for call recordings and customer interactions by recording calls and creating transcripts from text or SMS, which are then sent to the quality management tool or a WEM tool, allowing us to automatically score those calls for compliance and quality, and document processes to improve in the areas that were scored.

We have seen improvements in agent productivity, customer satisfaction, and reduced wait times. Specifically, we have seen an improvement in our CSAT scores and NPS scores, a reduction in cost per call, a decrease in average handle time, and utilization across the board has improved. Calls are more efficient because of agent assist and other tools, leading to many KPIs that have been improved through the use of NICE CXone.

The best features NICE CXone offers include a whole suite of products that encompasses workforce management, which involves scheduling the agents, recording their calls, and monitoring their calls, and performance management, providing coaching tools for the agent based on those quality scores. There is a wide array of WEM tools that help customer experience, agent performance, and optimization for the contact center.

Out of all those features, I find workforce management to be the most valuable in my day-to-day work because it allows us to schedule the agents and put them in the right place at the right time so that they are able to answer calls accordingly and our customers are not waiting for someone to speak to.

Workforce management allows for forecasting, scheduling, time off requests, and adjustments, making it a great tool that we utilize accordingly with our contact center.

NICE CXone has positively impacted my organization because the tools have been beneficial regarding the improvements I mentioned previously. One thing that could be better is the support that NICE provides around those tools. The tools themselves are adequate, we love the WFM tools, and the quality management tools have done their job, but they could be more robust and incorporate more AI solutions.

The support that NICE CXone provides is usually not timely, and we typically have to wait two or three days before we hear back or even longer to get an outcome or a response.

Enhancements in the tool could be beneficial, such as incorporating AI more thoroughly. An AI agent or some type of AI analyst would be beneficial so we do not have to do as much reporting and could simply input a prompt to an AI analyst who would provide us the coaching, feedback, statistics, or data we need.

The accuracy and reliability of NICE CXone's output need improvement. They are still using antiquated AI solutions instead of moving to more agentic models. They are still using more generative types of outcomes, which are acceptable, but much of the competition in the space have moved to more agentic and more natural language approaches. I think that is the next step for them.

I have been using NICE CXone for three years.

My advice to others looking into using NICE CXone is that it is an expensive product with a lot of guardrails on it. It forces you to use all the features, and it is not agnostic, so you have to use their call recording and all their other solutions. If you prefer something else, such as another WFM but prefer their QM, it does not work because it is all or nothing with them. I would rate this product a 6 overall.

I chose NICE CXone because it had the best return on investment and could scale effectively. After setting it up, I was so impressed that I went to work for NICE for three years, implementing their product for new customers, and then partnered with them for another three years, doing integrations with Microsoft and Dynamics 365 and helping redevelop features like their dialer and list management

One of the best aspects of CXone is its omnichannel experience. It treats all contacts, whether phone, chat, email, or SMS, through the same system, allowing for consistent reporting and a true omnichannel experience. The platform is very flexible. You can customize it to do almost anything as long as it's based on logic, which has been incredibly valuable.

In terms of analytics, CXone offers consistent, accessible data across all channels. In the past, different systems like Avaya for phones or separate platforms for chat and email made it hard to compare performance across channels. With CXone, you get the same data points across all interactions, making decision-making much easier. It also allows for deeper reporting, like IVR reporting, where you can see what options people choose and create custom KPIs for better insight.

One area where CXone could improve is in creating a more streamlined, user-friendly interface. While the interfaces are good, they can get a bit dated over time, though NICE is usually good about updating them. The implementation process can be challenging, which seems to be a common issue across CCaaS vendors. As someone focused on reporting and numbers, I would like to see improvements in the reporting features. It’s good as it is, but there are opportunities to streamline and simplify it since creating custom reports often requires specialized knowledge and coding skills.

About ten years ago, I started working with cloud platforms for contact centers when I was brought into a Silicon Valley startup. The person who ran their tech support, who used to work for me, asked me to join because, while he managed operations well, he didn't have experience with the infrastructure aspect. I evaluated several cloud platforms, including Interactive Intelligence (which got bought by Genesys), Five9, NICE, and InContact (which is now NICE CXone) and chose NICE CXone.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Our use case is to: 

• receive and make calls
• receive and send out emails
• obtain phone recordings

We are able to see the calls in queue and able to see if someone is available or not.

The agent list is the most valuable feature because we are able to see what each person is doing.

There are times when the data does not load and you have to keep hitting refresh. More colors and different layouts should be included in the next release.

I have been using inContact for one year.

Organ/Tissue/Eye donation call center.

inContact has helped our organization greatly by allowing us to see at a glance which agents are available to receive calls and those who are not, we are able to see why not.

The ability to send texts to phone numbers via inContact is the most valuable feature. 

inContact should offer a way to send faxes.

I have been using inContact for one year.