NICE CXone Reviews

We use NICE CXone for inbound and outbound calling and other digital channels for contact center purposes across all verticals. We are a system integrator and telecom provider that bundles this platform with our services and sells it to our customers.

We utilize all the features of NICE CXone because, based on customer requirements, it meets all aspects of features and functionality that are required. We work with multiple customers and position contact center solutions based on their needs, including inbound, outbound, all other digital channels, analytics, and AI features. We position solutions based on requirements, which can be NICE CXone or Genesis based on regional availability and customer budget appetite.

Regarding the analytics aspect of NICE CXone, we have not deployed it for any customers. We have reviewed the product capability through a product demo, but it has yet to be deployed for any customers.

We have worked with the omnichannel capabilities in NICE CXone.

Regarding workforce optimization with NICE CXone features, we have worked standalone with only the QM that has been initiated. Workforce has yet to be deployed as part of the bundle, and only QM has been utilized so far.

I work with the AI-driven tools in NICE CXone, specifically AI CoPilot and Enlight, which we are currently deploying in our system.

I assess the ease of using NICE CXone interface for new agents as excellent.

I assess the impact of the omnichannel capabilities on customer journey consistency as excellent. It is a single pane of glass solution where all channels and omnichannel features are available. It is very supportive and increases customer productivity overall.

The AI-driven tools in NICE CXone have improved customer interaction by providing auto responses from connecting to the system of records. Multiple features are available, such as Agent CoPilot, which assists agents with knowledge base access. These individual features complement the overall solution and reduce the average speed of transfer for agents and callers, enabling faster response times to customer queries. The AI widget helps achieve faster answer resolution to customer queries instead of requiring only manual intervention with agents toggling between multiple screens.

NICE CXone is a good feature, but it is expensive and costlier than other products such as Genesis or other alternatives. When it comes to solutioning, there are too many SKUs, which are line items or components that could have been bundled together. For example, CXone agent licenses do not include QM in the basic packages, whereas in the Genesis world it is bundled. The price comparison is higher compared to Genesis or other platforms. I have been using Genesis for three to four years across multiple customers, and now that NICE CXone has become available, I have started comparing all the features and benefits. I find there are some gaps, with more features available but at a higher cost for NICE.

Regarding cost-effectiveness and return on investment of NICE CXone, the main challenge is working with the NICE team. The speed of onboarding is lengthy and people-dependent initially. When comparing with other OEMs and CCaaS products, the UI interface and partner portal have multiple access points. I need to log into different portals for NICE CXone, whereas my other competitor platforms offer single sign-on where I can log in once and access all partner-led programs and learning materials in one location. There is room for improvement in this area, though gradually NICE can change this approach.

I have been working with NICE CXone for almost a year.

On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the best, I would rate NICE CXone technical support team a ten.

Positive

When it comes to the initial setup of NICE CXone, I find it entirely people-dependent. The process is not very straightforward because my team and I already know how CCaaS works. However, my interaction with the NICE team involves very basic information. Instead of providing comprehensive information all at once, they appear to be dragging things out. They should respect our time and enable us completely instead of providing small piecemeal information. They have complete information available and should have shared it with us rather than sharing only fragments. Providing the entire picture would speed up the whole process of onboarding.

My recommendation for other organizations considering NICE CXone is that it is a good solution. Currently, I am based in India, and NICE CXone does not have a node in India to meet India's regulatory requirements. As a result, I can only recommend it for international customers at this time. For India, it is not yet ready, and comparing it to other OEMs, it has yet to scale up. Once India has a node ready, we can promote this in India as well. As of now, we are proceeding very slowly and steadily with this product.

One important point is that working with NICE CXone is not just about the product platform; the people matter significantly. The product platform is fine, but the regional team's responsiveness and the speed at which they respond affects the overall experience. The perception of the product is ultimately shaped by how efficiently people support the onboarding process. This perception could have been avoided if people responded faster to support onboarding. I would rate this review a ten overall.

We use NICE CXone for voice routing and we have our IVR on it. We utilize ACD, IVR, and many other features. In our current application, we have implemented almost everything available.

We build our own systems with NICE CXone. We control all the modules ourselves for the routing and queue management. We control our own systems, which is what we appreciate about NICE CXone. We're not relying on a third party to maintain our system.

We are implementing chat, email, and voice capabilities. We have multi-channel functionality and are working on combining that into an omnichannel experience for the users.

We've started exploring AI capabilities with NICE CXone. We have several other tools that we're researching for AI implementation. We have not fully launched our AI product because we want to ensure proper guardrails are in place. Currently, we are focusing on call summaries and updating our CRMs with these summaries. We are not implementing next-best actions for our agents at this time as we're trying to maintain control.

The solution is very similar to what we had previously with Genesis. We wanted to maintain that solution while gaining more flexibility when adding new features such as AI components, which is considerably easier now.

The control aspect has been particularly beneficial. We are able to control how we utilize our CCaaS platform. We built our own CCaaS platform using NICE CXone in our AWS environment. This control was a significant benefit of NICE CXone.

The system is very flexible and powerful, especially for organizations wanting to control their environment. While Amazon Connect is effective, NICE CXone requires less work with its easier portal to configure the ACD and different users. NICE CXone provides better flexibility to build your environment with a cleaner UI for environment control.

The solution provides opportunities to connect with various carriers, unlike Amazon Connect. Amazon Connect doesn't offer the same level of control into ACD or SBCs.

We need more control over the AWS side of NICE CXone as that's the only area where we lack control. We should have more control over our AWS implementation instead of relying on connections and controls from NICE CXone to AWS. They currently have excessive control in that area.

I would need to examine other aspects of social media integration for NICE CXone and their control mechanisms. They are expanding into platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram. I'm interested in researching if we can communicate through NICE CXone when someone discusses our brand on these platforms.

I've been working with NICE CXone for four years.

The deployment was straightforward. For a smaller organization, it would be simple to stand up and launch. However, within our organization, which is complex and heavily regulated, we added complications due to compliance requirements. It wasn't NICE CXone's fault that it became complicated. In general, the deployment of NICE CXone is straightforward and easy.

We experienced a significant outage when someone at NICE CXone brought our system down. This incident highlighted our desire for more control. The incident escalated to C-level involvement to resolve the situation.

In general, the stability is good. We have our own technical account manager and substantial visibility. We maintain a good working relationship with NICE CXone, and their technical support is effective.

The customer service is generally good. We have our own technical account manager which provides us with substantial visibility. We work effectively with NICE CXone and their technical support is reliable.

Positive

We received an attractive deal when NICE CXone introduced their inContact solution. We knew we wanted to transition from our on-premises Genesis solution.

Genesis was just launching their cloud solution while NICE CXone was more mature at that time. This maturity was a key decision-making factor along with pricing. Genesis, despite us being an existing client, didn't offer competitive pricing.

For a smaller organization, keeping the out-of-the-box configuration would make deployment easier. The deployment of NICE CXone is straightforward and simple.

While specific numbers aren't available, comparing our previous costs with Genesis, there is definitely a return on investment. We are achieving cost savings compared to our previous Genesis expenses.

We utilize the analytics tools within NICE CXone while also employing our own tools. We scrape our data and use our own analytics tools alongside NICE CXone's insights, which help inform our contact center decisions.

We are implementing Enterprise Strategic Planning (ESP). For workforce management, considering all our different channels, it's beneficial to monitor agent breaks, volume increases, and plan agent scheduling accordingly.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate NICE CXone a 9.

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.

Positive

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.

We operate in a call center and take a high volume of calls.

It is more organized, but it has had many issues with echoing and little minor hiccups along the way.

Being able to listen in on a call, which is exceptionally good with training. If a coordinator is in training someone needs to listen in on certain calls and give feedback. Incontact allows you to easily log in to someone else’s call and listen.

It could improve the quality of calls.

One year.

I work remotely from home at night and use this system every single day that I am on shift. My company uses inContact for every incoming and outgoing call that comes through our call center as well as incoming emails and updates from our partner agencies.

inContact has improved my company by allowing for better tracking of incoming and outgoing calls. It also helps keep employees accountable for their work as each person is in the queue so it distributes the calls evenly. It provides good quality recordings of the incoming and outgoing calls, which are used for audits among other things.

I like that you can tag each call as this helps my company to better keep track of calls and the case that they are assigned to. 

It is very user-friendly with minimal training. 

It is easy to look up and playback calls with this system as it categorizes the different types of calls that come through my call center. I like that inContact is always updating and continues to improve. The quality of its recorded calls is among the best that I have had experience with.                             

Occasionally, the system runs slow and will kick us out of Max, which then has to be restarted, and can cause issues as our call center deals with time sensitive phone calls. It is a hassle, if you are busy and caught up with something, that it will log you out.

This has been my first time ever using inContact, and I have been using it continuously for about a year. 

For the most part, it is a pretty stable solution. It has its issues every once in a while just like everything else.

It has a wide range of uses and is perfect for what my company needs.

I have not had any interaction with customer service/technical support up to this point, which is refreshing. 

At my previous employment, we used Call Parrot which was absolutely atrocious. I switched to inContact because I started employment with a new company that was already using it. 

Unknown.

Unknown.

Not my area.

This is not my area. 

inContact was already in use when I began employment at my company. I did not have a say in which system was chosen. 

So far, it is the best system I have worked with.

I use this everyday for my job. I am a supervisor so i need to be able to keep my eye on things and make sure everything is going according to schedule. With NICE inContact, I am able to watch all of my coworkers and direct each one to what task they need to be doing. Giving the okay to break or lunch and seeing who is on the phone, this is all simpler and possible thanks to the "Agent List" that we have set up on our NICE inContact dashboard. You can have as many dashboards as you need. Each person can have their own or you can all use the same one, whatever works best for your company.

It's easier as a supervisor to do your job more efficiently. You can have multiple things open at once to watch everything, being able to take one look at a page and see everything you need rather then having to flip through multiple programs. This is such a time saver. I get a lot more done in my day due to being able to keep my opened programs down to a minimum. 

The dashboard: It can keep an eye on more then one thing at once, which makes my job a little less stressful. I have many sections open everyday: Agent List, Call/Contact List, Service Level, and Queue Counter. The wonderful thing about this is that you can have as many or as few things on your dashboard as you want. You can adjust it to how you want and what makes it easier for you. I also like that there is a option to use an integrated Softphone. If you do not have a actual phone to use, this is very helpful. 

I have noticed that occasionally the dashboard will freeze and some things may get stuck for a while. For example, if I have a dashboard open that shows how many calls are in queue and how many are currently being handled by agents, sometimes a call that an agent is handling will get stuck on the dashboard after the agent ends the call and the dashboard will show that the call is still a live call. Our tech team has explained this to us as a ghost call. After some time (or maybe many screen refreshes) the call will go away like it has just ended. 

Three years.

Stability-wise, it is a 10 out of 10. I have never in three years been unable to do my job because of NICE inContact not working.

It is simple to change your settings to what you need/want them to be.

I personally have never had to reach out to their customer service or technical support.

I have not used another platform. 

I did not do this part.

I was not part of this process.

This is not something that I take care of for my company.

I was not in charge of making the switch. My company started using NICE inContact before i started working here.

If you are wondering if you or your company should use NICE inContact, I would suggest reaching out to them and asking for a demonstration. Totally worth it! It is super simple to use.