What is our primary use case?
MSG91 was one of our tools that we used for our client services regarding OTP authentication. Our company specializes in making apps, and for that, we need OTP authentication. Some clients obtain their own MSG91 accounts, or we get it on an in-house basis.
We usually use MSG91 for the application where we take the OTPs of the end-user customers. It is mainly catered for B2C people, where we build apps in the electric vehicle space where customers can charge at charging stations. For example, one of the clients we built an app for was Nicole EV app. For them, we integrated MSG91 where end-users log in from their number, and it is authenticated by our MSG91 account, and we deliver the OTP for their respective mobile numbers.
What is most valuable?
What I appreciated about MSG91 is that the experience is very seamless, so we can access their APIs to check and navigate on their website itself. One of the main advantages is that it is very quick in delivering the OTP. When I dealt with other providers such as Vodafone and Hutch, it does take time and there is time lagging when delivering OTPs. MSG91 is more seamless than other SMS providers, and it is very well authenticated between our team.
One tech team is involved in integrating the application with the SMS provider, so with the APIs and also with the testing part, the product is more stable. When compared to the rest of the SMS providers, I felt this is more stable.
The key benefits I have seen from using MSG91 include the ability to make our own accounts. As I mentioned, we were providers who used to provide in-built apps for the rest of our clients, so instead of them finding an SMS provider, we provided the messaging OTP from our house itself, from our company's name. That was the main key benefit where the OTP goes with the SMS provider's name. Our name is Kazam, so the SMS goes by the name itself, Kazam, and the end clients were satisfied with it. It depends on partnership to partnership, but having a main account allows sub-accounts to be created so that we can provide those sub-accounts to our clients.
What needs improvement?
If I think of any improvements for MSG91, it would be in the documentation. Since they have the APIs, they can revise them to make it more seamless with the user experience and allow a non-technical person to understand and try to test it before reaching out to the main tech team.
From the features perspective and functionality-wise, there are not many missing features I can recall.
For how long have I used the solution?
I used MSG91 for around eleven months.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The initial setup with MSG91 was fairly easy, and they were very stable. There is always room for improvisation to make it much smoother since we are in the world of AI now, so they can start doing that. Overall, it was easy and smooth.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
MSG91's transactional messages do not create a tedious experience or difficulty for them to understand. It is just logging into your number, and the OTP is received by the end-user or the customer. There are no customer analytics involved in that particular aspect because it is just delivering the OTP, so there are no metrics I can provide about how it has improved customer efficiency or metrics.
How are customer service and support?
I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of MSG91 as very great. They are very hands-on, guiding you multiple times without showing frustration in understanding and making things clear. They are quite easy to contact throughout the whole team of MSG91.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Prior to adopting MSG91, I used Hutch, which was mainly a client-owned solution. Since we were the integration data partners, I had the privilege to see the analytics dashboard and how their campaigns ran. When it comes to the analytics dashboard and the user interface, I felt MSG91 is cleaner and much easier.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup with MSG91 was fairly easy, and they were very stable. There is always room for improvisation to make it much smoother since we are in the world of AI now, so they can start doing that. Overall, it was easy and smooth.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Regarding the pricing aspect, we had a setup on a transactional basis. If one OTP goes, it was one Rupee per SMS. I stay in India, so it is one Rupee per SMS, one Rupee for each OTP delivery.
I do not find it cost-effective because we were already running in losses. One Rupee per OTP delivery and in cases where the end-user's Wi-Fi or internet is not working properly, sometimes that person ends up resending the OTP multiple times, resulting in the delivery of two or three OTPs. Per person, we incurred four to five Rupees, so it did not actually make sense. We tried to negotiate on that part with the SMS providers to take up bulk OTPs, such as if you deliver one thousand five hundred OTPs in a month, we would charge XYZ amount, which they were not agreeing to. They insisted on one Rupee per OTP delivery, so that cost us considerably more.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
The disadvantages of Hutch in comparison to MSG91 include that their APIs are somewhat problematic. When we were integrating with the APIs, we faced a lot of issues during integration, so they can improve their APIs.
What other advice do I have?
What I appreciated about MSG91 is that the experience is very seamless, so we can access their APIs to check and navigate on their website itself. One of the main advantages is that it is very quick in delivering the OTP. When I dealt with other providers such as Vodafone and Hutch, it does take time and there is time lagging when delivering OTPs. MSG91 is more seamless than other SMS providers, and it is very well authenticated between our team.
One tech team is involved in integrating the application with the SMS provider, so with the APIs and also with the testing part, the product is more stable. When compared to the rest of the SMS providers, I felt this is more stable.
I would rate this product an eight out of ten.
