NICE CXone Reviews

NICE CXone is used primarily for a customer-facing knowledge website. The customer-facing knowledge website is fully crowdsourced, so information is collected from customer-facing employees, use cases, tutorials, and best practices, which is then written up and published for customers to access for free with no login required.

Before choosing NICE CXone, other options were evaluated, including Salesforce, which was necessary because it was already in use by the company, and using it would have been free. However, it did not fit the needs for a variety of reasons, and there was another product in consideration, but I do not have any memory of what that was.

NICE CXone offers features that are easy to use, and I appreciate many features such as tagging and variables. The ease of use is really valuable since we are only two people without any technical support or resources to do development work for us, so we needed something that was super plug-and-play, and this fit the bill.

The tagging and variables specifically help with the workflow as they are designed to be used through custom classifications that allow us to create subpages, enabling us to further divide content into logical categories. For example, we might have a use case that has 50 articles in it, but we do not want to just list 50 article names on a page, which is not very usable. By using custom classifications to tag by product, add-on, contributor, or a variety of other factors, we can actually use the site's functionality to auto-sort articles into more concrete categories.

NICE CXone has positively impacted the organization as the website was built from scratch; I was hired to build this website six years ago, and it has grown phenomenally. It is integrated into all sorts of programs, different applications, and different campaigns, and I would not have been able to do that without a site that is very easy to use.

One inconvenience is that because we are crowdsourced, we have hundreds of contributors every year, with most people only submitting one article, maybe two, so it does not make sense to pay for licenses for all of those people. This leads to some intermediary manual copy-paste processes because we just cannot have everybody working in the system itself, making it a little bit problematic for maintaining a source of truth.

The main issues with NICE CXone are the lack of ability to integrate with some internal things that we want to do; it has to do with the way the system is designed, which is complex. We wanted to integrate with our internal system for instant translations, and we were not able to do that, along with a couple of other things that illustrate that it is kind of an isolated system to itself, making it pretty hard to tap into and grow even further.

There are a couple of little issues with reporting that have not been very good, but really, the system is very functional.

I have been using NICE CXone for over five years.

NICE CXone is stable, although the company seems to have a lot of outages; nevertheless, those generally do not last very long.

NICE CXone's scalability is very good concerning the number of articles that could be hosted on the site. However, as far as the authoring experience goes, it is really bad, and it would be very cost-prohibitive to have the number of licenses needed to smooth out and make the authoring processes more efficient.

Customer support for NICE CXone is good; it has always been good, except when they decided to change their model and get rid of their customer support representatives a year and a half ago. We now find ourselves in a random pool without a dedicated representative, which is really frustrating.

Before using NICE CXone, Zendesk was used as the solution, but it was not what was wanted; it was just too basic and did not have the features needed.

The experience with NICE CXone's pricing, setup cost, and licensing was fine when it was MindTouch before it was bought by the current company. However, the current contract is a little vague and confusing, and the instant translation pricing is absolutely horrible.

I have not seen a direct return on investment from NICE CXone; since our site does not require a login, we do not really have good metrics on specifically tracking whether a customer was going to churn. Our mission is adoption and renewals, which involves both customers accessing the site directly and customer success people using the site with their customers to prescribe tutorials and use cases, so the general growth serves as a sign of success.

I do not have specific metrics in front of me that show the positive impact of NICE CXone, but we have grown page views and users phenomenally year on year. This fiscal year just ended in July, and we were probably up about 30% from last year, and it has been about the same every year—it just keeps growing and growing. Internally, success is judged by the number of different groups that integrate with us, so different groups come to us and say they want to use an API to pull content into their application, or they want to start using the site to publish all of their content for a specific industry or purpose because ours is the best place for it; there is no other logical place for it. The internal growth in usage and demand for content on our site truly reflects our success.

NICE CXone's AI capabilities regarding governance and security are not being used. NICE CXone's AI capabilities are not being used, so I cannot comment on the accuracy and reliability of output.

I do not have specific advice for others looking into using NICE CXone, but I suggest doing thorough due diligence, making a requirements matrix, and ensuring it fits their needs. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10 overall.

My main use case for NICE CXone is as a schedule tracker. I check my start time, end time, and my scheduled tea breaks and lunch breaks, which also appear in the system. If I want to swap schedules with my colleagues who have the same function in my team, then I can change either my daily schedule with theirs or I can exchange a Saturday to work a day off in their time, for example.

I wanted to change my Sunday and Saturday for NICE CXone because a colleague of mine wanted to be off for Father's Day, which was the 21st, and I was working the following Saturday, the 4th. It really helped to give him the Saturday that he needed. I went on to the group schedules tab, clicked on trade a schedule, entered select from agent, entered his name, and then selected the chosen dates. I mentioned that I was swapping for my day off, and then clicked on send request. I alerted my colleague that the request had already been sent through so that he could check on his system to review the pending request and approve it.

In addition to my previous points about NICE CXone, I can also track how many cases or how many records I have worked on for the day. Sometimes I think there is a bit of a lag or delay in the way it updates. For example, because I mainly do web chat and live interactions through our app or website chat, I would go on to NICE CXone just to see how many interactions I have completed or note how much time I have spent on interactions for the day. However, it can be a bit delayed in updating real-time stats.

I think the best feature NICE CXone offers for me would be to swap schedules, because then we do not have to request assistance from management or our resource planners. It is also nice to see our schedules at a glance for monthly and weekly views.

For me personally, NICE CXone has helped me manage my time and workflow better. Sometimes I need to change my tea break or my lunch break, and sometimes it would not allow me if the staffing requirements do not allow my swap. That is one thing that is beneficial, as an agent can change their shift to a later or earlier time, for example, if they have to get back home. However, that might be beneficial because it means that it is in line with the scheduling requirements and it maintains the service level with our clients.

It is easy to use these features of NICE CXone because it is user-friendly. Everything is quite clearly labeled, concise, and it is set up well. I can find what I am looking for quite simply and proceed with my request very easily. The way it is set up is perfect.

For us, I think the improvement we need for NICE CXone is to be able to swap our office days, as that is the only thing we cannot change. Currently, we still have to request assistance from our managers. It is probably an organizational block more than a software issue, but anything else seems perfect and I do not think there is anything else to change.

I think that there is a bit of a delay in the accuracy and reliability of the output I see in NICE CXone, as I mentioned before. The page tracking and cases, interactions tracking is delayed.

I think NICE CXone is a nice system, but if it could update the aesthetics on the display just to make it more easy on the eye, I think that would be great.

I have been using NICE CXone for about three years now. We used a different schedule planner before they introduced CXone.

NICE CXone is stable, but I have experienced some technical issues or downtime. It is not always occurring, as it happens every now and then occasionally.

NICE CXone's scalability is good, as it can handle more users. There are over 1,500 staff for the contact center that all use CXone respectively.

I have never interacted with the customer support for NICE CXone. If there is an issue with the system, we log it to our technical support and then they help us. We use internal IT, and perhaps they have engaged with NICE CXone support team, but we do not directly deal with them.

We previously used a solution called Webstation, Workforce Management before NICE CXone, which had a similar look. There were one or two other things I could do with it. More or less, it does the same thing that NICE CXone does, but I am not sure if this was the upgraded version of that or what it was. I just remember it was called WFO, Workforce Optimization Webstation.

I am not sure how NICE CXone has seen a return on investment for the rest of the organization. I think the resource planning department will be better able to answer that question.

Before choosing NICE CXone, I think we evaluated other options, which should have been called Webstation, but I am not sure what else.

I would not be able to say how NICE CXone has positively impacted the whole organization's totality, because we all just have to accept that it is the way we view our schedules. It is what it is, so if I do not use it, then I would not know how to plan my day or when to take my breaks, or my adherence will be impacted. In the overall organization, it is probably working fine. If it was not, then they would change it.

I think NICE CXone does what it should work, but I cannot imagine anything else that can be improved.

My advice for others looking into using NICE CXone is that they might not like the aesthetics, but everything else works normally. It is quite concise, and everything is easily accessed. It is a nice system to use. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate NICE CXone a seven because of the aesthetics that would not have got it higher. A seven is appropriate because it does what it needs to do, works most of the time, has no issues, and everything is easy to read. All options are there, easily available and ready to be clicked. However, it is just in terms of the color scheme and the design layout, maybe the colors or the aesthetics of the actual site that could look better.

My main use case for NICE CXone is all inbound and outbound telephony for scheduling new patients for their visits.

NICE CXone has impacted my organization positively in that it was a great initial platform to launch from, but it did not keep up with everything that we needed, so I had to transition away. NICE CXone was a good initial platform because it helped us from a bare-bones patient outreach standpoint, but we did not get the support we needed, and the user interface was very limited regarding what we could do with it.

Regarding the features, the user interface and knowledge base were pretty good. The user interface and knowledge base helped me learn the system itself, but there are many issues back and forth that from a support standpoint really left a bad taste in my mouth.

What did not work well for me with NICE CXone is that CX1 was actually the back end, and we were leveraging RingCentral as the telephony platform main user interface. I ran into many issues with data integrity, forecast accuracy, cross-skilling and cross-utilization of agents, and net staffing reports. Everything was broken, and we are actually going to work to transition away from CX1.

I believe NICE CXone can be improved by catching up with the artificial intelligence world of agentic AI, agent assist, or anything else that would help it reach where it should be in 2026. I feel it is very dated and limited in regard to what it could do.

Regarding NICE CXone's artificial intelligence capabilities, I think it has zero governance and security because the solution that we had had no artificial intelligence.

I have been using NICE CXone for about sixteen months.

In my experience, NICE CXone is not stable because it has outages once every couple of months or so.

I would say NICE CXone's scalability is pretty good from a user interface standpoint and user experience standpoint, but we just need to have the right people on the call to get it done right the first time.

The customer support for NICE CXone leaves much opportunity because we were navigating a relationship between NICE CX1 and RingCentral, and there was much pointing fingers at the other regarding where support or issues originated, which was a cause for much tension.

I previously used a different solution before NICE CXone. The team that I joined was launched on NICE CX1, but I myself have worked with Verint, Blue Pumpkin, NICE's IEX, Five9, and many others.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for NICE CXone is that for the money, it was very nickel-and-diming. I felt if they had negotiated better rates, it would have been better, but it was not the best from an expense standpoint. I was not present when we onboarded and brought in CX1.

My advice to others looking into using NICE CXone is to have a true, good vision of what your current state looks like, but also read the indicators and understand what you will need in the future, because I felt there were many gaps regarding contract negotiated rates. I gave NICE CXone a rating of seven out of ten.

I primarily use SMS, email, and calls for routing contacts via SMS, email, and phone to agents.

The new desktop scripting tool is better than the web-based one.

NICE CXone allows agents to request time off and trade schedules with other people. They can access training and coaching, and they can play games to help improve their performance. It functions as a good one-stop shop where they can input their preferred hours and manage their schedules, rather than having to go to multiple places for professional development.

A better approach would be to have built-in routing capabilities for scenarios such as routing by area code to different agents, rather than having to build this functionality with snippets. When working within the scripting environment, you need to add information to narrow down what a certain function does. Having a built-in system for routing by area code, or perhaps a database that you can simply access, would be more efficient than building it out yourself.

I started using this solution before 2000, but my usage has been sporadic. I use it for a couple of years and then move on to something else for a while before returning to it.

I have experienced very little in the way of stability issues.

The solution is very scalable. Once you get the licenses, you can do whatever you want.

The quality and speed of customer service were both good when I needed to use it. They assisted me in reviewing and rewriting some scripts and provided helpful support in a timely manner.

I base my comparison off of RingCentral. RingEX is a basic model phone system with poor analytics and reporting. Ring CX has more and better capability for reporting and analytics, but it still falls short. NICE CXone, on the other hand, has great analytics and reporting. It includes many templates that you can modify, and it has a lot of out-of-the-box, pre-built functionality.

The initial setup is easy because professional services assists with the process. You gather the information and provide it to professional services, and they help you build out the initial scripts and everything else.

You need a team to implement NICE CXone. Depending on the size of the organization, a single person could gather all the information, but one person would never be able to compile it all and put it together by themselves. It takes a team. You have to have networking involved, and you have to work with different stakeholders and collaborators to figure out what needs to be done and by whom. You may need to export data from your old system. Overall, it involves a lot of work that one person typically cannot do alone.

Five9 has too many panels. You have to go through all these different panels to find what you are trying to do and then navigate from one panel to another. It is harder to navigate overall.

I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

My main use case for NICE CXone is contact center as a service. A specific example of how I use NICE CXone in our contact center operations is that we have IVRs that customers call into on the voice channel and are directed through.

NICE CXone helps manage and improve the routing process for my team by providing multiple options for targeting specific agents through routing attributes and skills.

NICE CXone has impacted my organization positively by empowering managers, team leaders, and supervisors to be more autonomous and to proactively manage their team in real time.

Managers and team leaders use NICE CXone to manage their teams in real time with tools including the supervisor tool, the real-time dashboards, and the Performance Management modules, which are all very impactful for real-time management.

The best features NICE CXone offers include a robust scripting tool, many channels with easy integration, and industry-leading peripheral products including Workforce Management, Quality Management, and Performance Management.

These features, including robust scripting, easy integration of many channels, and the workforce and quality management tools, are all very important.

I believe there could be improvements in NICE CXone, specifically in release planning.

It is not unusual for a release to either cause an outage or have to be rolled back, and I would appreciate seeing their R&D team exercise more diligence in this area.

I have been using NICE CXone for six years.

I find that NICE CXone is stable, although there are end-user and customer-facing issues with outages occurring approximately once every six months.

NICE CXone's scalability is easy to scale.

The customer support is good. However, I believe the support engineers team is an area where I would appreciate improvements, but my TAM is great, so it is balanced overall.

I would rate the customer support as an eight on a scale of one to ten.

I previously used Cisco's UCCX on-premises solution. I decided to switch from Cisco UCCX to NICE CXone because we needed to move into the cloud, and we conducted a comparison of the top five CCaaS products, with NICE scoring above all others.

I do not believe there has been a huge ROI in terms of cost savings.

Rather, we have avoided losing customers because we had a poor system before, and we are now able to retain our high-value customers because we can communicate with them and respond to their needs quickly.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is somewhat irrelevant because we are sold through Verizon rather than directly from NICE.

Before choosing NICE CXone, I evaluated other options including Cisco's cloud platform and other vendors, though I do not recall all of the companies we assessed.

My advice to others looking into NICE CXone is to ensure you are buying it directly from NICE because having someone else's price book complicates matters.

I would also recommend that you fully explore all of the additional products or modules that you will want to add and obtain licensing costs upfront so you understand what you are investing in, which will provide you a sense of how much additional or new products in the future will cost.

I rate this product nine out of ten overall.

My main use case for NICE CXone is digital transformation, bringing in multiple channels for our clients to serve digital interactions, automations, agent handling, and a customer experience.

NICE CXone acts as an orchestrator layer, with multiple channels being the way people reach out or the channel which they utilize coming back to NICE CXone. Being an orchestrator, it knows exactly where interactions need to be sent, whether to a prescribed path, an agent, or a different product altogether for self-servicing. I primarily focus on handling digital interaction intents, utterances, outcomes, and escalation to agents.

I have multiple use cases, but on a high level, NICE CXone comes with multiple product integrations. It is not just about routing, but also offers components like feedback management, QM, and WFM. This integrated suite supports the overall contact center operations and experience.

The best feature that NICE CXone offers, which is very recent, is the Copilot. This Copilot works in conjunction with the agent workspace and serves as a helper product for an agent while engaging in a conversation. It helps bring in articles from a KM repository if available and integrates with multiple resources, both internal and external to NICE. It also provides hints of sentiments and the luxury of performing specific tasks, making that specific item or product look very promising.

NICE CXone has impacted my organization positively through deployment. I am not utilizing NICE CXone as an end client, but what we are working for and what has been achieved so far is the automation, which is something any platform would do. We are trying to automate many things, avoiding intense things that escalate to agents and striving to self-service a lot of information. It gives us the luxury that the end customer can reach out from any specific channel, with just one orchestrator to manage that.

I think NICE CXone can be improved as it is currently an evolving product. It evolves rapidly, with many products or integrations coming in. For example, they are offering new integrations with a specific product called Amelia and a new feature called Cognigy, which promise a lot for the future. However, being a NICE consumer or developer for these instances and products currently, it becomes challenging due to documentation issues and the instability of some products. NICE has potential for improvement, but I also see much ongoing work, with documentation not fully supporting it and the system possibly lacking some key features or configurations, leading to problems.

Other improvements needed for NICE CXone include reviewing and enhancing the support they provide.

I have been using NICE CXone for the last five to six years.

NICE CXone does not seem stable at this point, but based on my experience of six to seven years, it generally is a stable product.

When discussing NICE CXone's scalability, I would say it is fair. It provides most of the essential features, protocols, and integrations available in the market. However, it does not allow for much customization according to specific requirements. Therefore, I would rate its scalability as fair—not very good, but not bad either, and good enough.

I believe customer support at NICE CXone can be greatly improved. There is a lot of feedback regarding the experience with NICE CXone, and they need to review their supporting structures. There have been consistent improvements since I started using NICE CXone, but there is still room for betterment. I would rate customer support a seven on a scale of one to ten.

I have previously used Avaya as a unified UCN contact center, unified communications, and contact center system. I have utilized it extensively, having performed many transformations myself. The shift was due to legacies, migrating to the cloud, and the benefits of switching services between providers quickly, primarily driven by the rapid advancements in AI capabilities. This transition helps in cutting down on license costs, data center expenses, and minimizing the number of calls reaching agents. This is why I am transitioning from existing Avaya, Verint, or Genesys on-premise systems to NICE CXone.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing suggests they are neither very simple nor overly complicated, but rather complicated due to a lack of accessible information. NICE has its own terminology that relates back to various suites and products. NICE encompasses a bundle of many products, bringing in numerous SKUs and different terminologies that can overwhelm someone unfamiliar with NICE. For those of us in the industry for a while, it makes sense, but overall, one must consult NICE for SKU sets, licenses, and everything. Better documentation or references could simplify this process, and I believe NICE is working on it, but it is not available at this point.

I cannot share specific return on investment metrics at this moment, but we have seen an impact on customer satisfaction, especially among tech-savvy individuals who enjoy exploring the system. Overall, these systems depend on how they are curated for end users, affecting various metrics. I have observed positive trends regarding CSAT scores, with fewer call transfers back to agents, and users actively engaging in self-service. While I do not have clear numbers on hand right now, the feedback has been positive.

I evaluated other options before choosing NICE CXone, specifically exploring Amazon Connect and Genesys Cloud.

My advice to others looking into using NICE CXone is to look closely at the product capabilities and how integrated the setups are, especially for key personas like customers and agents. The major impacts will be on these two groups. The customer experience significantly depends on how you curate it, and the product functionality and features also matter. Evaluating your system should include how well it integrates with CRMs. If you are thinking about transformation, assess all angles, particularly your CRM and CCaaS system. If your service runs on AWS, NICE being part of it would be a better fit, making many processes more feasible. If your cloud provider offers services in multiple platforms, I recommend considering those alternatives carefully.

Copilot seems to impact my day-to-day work and agent efficiency positively as it helps agents during conversations by providing a lot of key information. It renders down articles according to the live conversation, which is quite nice to have. It assists with sentiments, specific answers, tips, and tricks. When considering that we are handling a multiple omnichannel setup, keeping that context and information related to that specific channel or conversation becomes very critical where Copilot helps out.

I have seen specific outcomes or metrics from these automations or orchestrations as we are progressing on that front. I have implemented multiple products, which have impacted both parties, the end customer and the agent. For the end customer, things become easier because they can navigate and self-service a lot of information by themselves, which is a great feature for end users who know what they want to get done and are familiar with the system. It becomes so easy to accomplish tasks. NICE provides this information, and on the agent side, many new products like Copilot make the agent's life easier, allowing integrations with different platforms like MSD and Salesforce. This prevents agents from needing to shuffle between their omnichannel setup, as they can work through it all in one workspace. A combination of these two elements yields positive impact, and we see metrics indicating self-servicing where calls are not getting escalated to agents. Feedback has improved significantly.

Regarding NICE CXone's AI capabilities, it is native to AWS, relying heavily on AWS's policies. As an end customer, you may not have to worry much because of the cloud setup, but we do conduct our own reviews on how our data is stored, as multiple products come into the picture, adding some complexity. Overall, since it is hosted on Amazon, many policies from Amazon apply to NICE CXone as well.

When considering NICE CXone's AI capabilities, I think the accuracy and reliability of output are improving. NICE recently acquired Cognigy as an AI platform, which is relatively new to the market. They provide many integrations, and Cognigy certainly stands out. In contrast, NICE also has some in-house products, like Copilot, which I find to be key, with Copilot being particularly useful at this point. Cognigy seems promising on paper, although I have not fully experienced its capabilities yet. I would rate this review a six out of ten overall.

I am currently not using NICE CXone, but in previous projects, I implemented NICE CXone into one of my projects.

I implemented NICE CXone with our Service Cloud within Salesforce where sales agents and service agents could get calls directly from the softphone inside Salesforce and could see all related contact, case information, and account information while providing answers to their respective customers over the call.

I integrated NICE CXone with our Service Cloud Omni-Channel. The use case was that whenever users were facing problems while ordering into the Experience Cloud, they had the ability to call the call center. Automatically when they were calling, using the connector and the softphone inside Omni, agents could take their calls and on behalf of those customers, after call validation and speech validation, they could place orders on behalf of the customers, saving a lot of time and helping them in real time without worry about security constraints.

NICE CXone is very useful for our company because it provided us with live dashboards on all incoming calls and cases coming through NICE CXone, and the configuration, blending rules, and call waiting process setup are much easier.

NICE CXone has evolved considerably, and there are many cool features implemented in recent times. One of the key features is identifying and voice verification, which I really appreciated. Agents did not have to manually ask for first name, last name, and spend many minutes just to verify customers. This feature is definitely going to help because agents can now focus on direct troubleshooting rather than focusing on who is making the call without any worry.

After introducing NICE CXone to our workflows, we are seeing faster resolution of all open cases and shorter resolution time and shorter waiting time, which we had problems with previously.

Based on my last conversation with our customer, we were able to save approximately 23% of resolution time. Service agents were optimized to get those calls without worrying. It was a huge improvement for us.

I did not use its AI capability as much because at that time NICE CXone did not have AI capabilities. It was back in 2021 when I implemented NICE CXone.

As I mentioned, at that time we did not have this AI capability, so I cannot comment on this question.

I have been working with the Salesforce ecosystem for the past 13 years, so I have quite a bit of experience now.

It performed well with our volume, and I did not find any issues at that time.

It was a great conversation with customer support. Whenever we had any issue, they were proactive, prompt, and provided us with timely resolution.

We were using Avaya, and since we had a lot of challenges with utilizing Avaya, we went with NICE CXone.

To be honest, it was a leadership decision and I was not the decision maker at that time.

There was nothing major.

It was smooth. We had a dedicated product team who was very efficient and helpful.

We saw improvement in all these metrics. In terms of money, we were down by 12%. For employees, we were able to utilize more of their time, which was being wasted. Time was a huge improvement of around 23% resolution, as I mentioned.

I do not have any specific feedback to share because I am no longer implementing it. We have a rival product for our current company, but NICE CXone has some cool implementation and features which I would like to adopt and hope we can use this product for our current company as well.

My current company does not use NICE CXone. We are using a rival company product. In our previous company, we were also a customer.

I would strongly recommend NICE CXone to any future company looking for contact center related applications.

I really appreciate the product capabilities and it was well aligned with our use case. I provided this review with a rating of 9 out of 10.

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.

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.