NICE CXone Reviews

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.

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.

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.