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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The audio quality in NICE CXone has room for improvement, as I experience issues like diffused calls and crackling audio. Clearing cache and cookies from browsers often resolves these problems, but it's something that occurs frequently. Simplifying the studio tool could also be an improvement, along with organizing external training and better communication about new features, like agent assist or agent co-pilot.
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.
Donor Management Coordinator at Legacy Donor Services Foundation
Real User
May 22, 2020
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.
Donor Management Coordinator at Legacy Donor Services Foundation
Real User
May 21, 2020
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.
Service Level Supervisor at a comms service provider with 51-200 employees
Real User
Mar 19, 2020
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.
Customer Service Manager at a wholesaler/distributor with 51-200 employees
Real User
Mar 17, 2020
I would like to see inView be a built-in feature of CXone rather than a separate platform, but everything else is terrific. The ACD/QM reporting and the dashboards inside of CXOne are a little clunky and hard to navigate compared to the inView reports and dashboards. The inView dashboards have so many options and drilling methods, it would be great to combine that directly with CXone to be able to drill into actual contacts, which is the strength that the CXOne dashboards do have going for them.
NICE CXone enhances customer service with AI-driven tools, omnichannel support, and dynamic help systems. Ideal for contact separation and centralized reporting, it simplifies call and email handling with real-time analytics and a flexible interface.NICE CXone supports sophisticated customer interactions by offering features to improve call management and reporting. Integrating omnichannel experiences through consistent analytics, it provides efficient WebRTC functionality and customization....
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The audio quality in NICE CXone has room for improvement, as I experience issues like diffused calls and crackling audio. Clearing cache and cookies from browsers often resolves these problems, but it's something that occurs frequently. Simplifying the studio tool could also be an improvement, along with organizing external training and better communication about new features, like agent assist or agent co-pilot.
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.
It could improve the quality of calls.
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.
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.
inContact should offer a way to send faxes.
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.
I would like to see inView be a built-in feature of CXone rather than a separate platform, but everything else is terrific. The ACD/QM reporting and the dashboards inside of CXOne are a little clunky and hard to navigate compared to the inView reports and dashboards. The inView dashboards have so many options and drilling methods, it would be great to combine that directly with CXone to be able to drill into actual contacts, which is the strength that the CXOne dashboards do have going for them.