Polycom RealPresence Clariti Reviews

We use it both nationally and internationally with our partners, however, it's used in a closed environment.

I find the ability to follow the calls, the call flow, the ability to look at the history, and more on the fault-finding tools to be valuable. It improved from a support model perspective. 

It simplified the licensing, reduced administration since it's based on calls, not based on users. It's about managing the calls and verifying we have enough space as opposed to always adding licenses for endpoints or users.

They are discontinuing the product and they are moving over to Pexip. The only issue we have is with some of the bridging stuff, particularly with respect to DTMF and outgoing calls. That's our biggest issue.

We had it when it was a CMA, so probably about ten or 15 years.

Based on the licensing, which is based on calls and not users, I have 10,000 users. Since it's a closed network, it doesn't get utilized as much as a network that's on because of the environment ticketing.

I think with the support, it has to do with the transition they did with HP over the last couple of years. They went to a different support model. It's more like a learning curve for the new people.

Neutral

I would say it has a learning curve, as they all do. However, it is simpler than Cisco. It's one of the simpler solutions I have used, taking less than a week to set up.

There were two people involved with the deployment, basically as integrators.

We paid it off years ago. We have had the product for over ten years, around twelve years of testing. So, yes, we have definitely got a return on investment.

The costing is really good. It is at least expensive, probably around four out of ten.

I would recommend it, however, it depends on the environment. We have a lot of users but not a lot of usage, so the price model is really good for that environment. Overall, I would give it a nine out of ten. I really enjoy the product. 

Our clients use the solution for its video calling facilities and internet calling services. They wanted to use it with different platforms like Microsoft. Polycom RealPresence Clariti is an open platform that can be integrated with everything.

I have big enterprise customers who have branches worldwide, and they want a dedicated video conferencing service that gives a lifelike experience. Products like Microsoft Teams are more into collaboration than considering the video conferencing quality.

Customers are more satisfied with Polycom RealPresence Clariti because they get more lifelike images with much video and audio clarity, which is of priority to them. They can even bring in their own devices to get connected to the phones. Federal customers have all their services on-premises. Customers who want their services on-premises should first consider Polycom RealPresence Clariti.

Polycom started with speaker tracking services, which causes whoever speaks to be shown in the biggest stream. They have a lot of fancy features that the users want. Some proprietary Polycom features include speaker tracking, acoustic fencing, noise cancellation, active noise cancellation, and noise cancellation AI. These features are specific to Polycom RealPresence Clariti, and customers are interested in them.

Polycom RealPresence Clariti is very bad when moving towards the cloud. I think that Microsoft Teams and Zoom have already taken over the market. Polycom is currently looking into more end devices than server components and infrastructure. A cloud version would have been better, but that will not be feasible for Polycom now. It would have been helpful to have a cloud version during the migration stages, but now the time has gone.

As a company, it's better for Polycom to look into the video conferencing devices rather than the infrastructure. Earlier, one of the advantages was that the infrastructure was very much open, and it was easy to integrate the tool with other platforms like Cisco. That is not the scenario now, and Polycom should concentrate on the endpoint hardware devices.

I have been using Polycom RealPresence Clariti for 10 to 15 years.

Polycom RealPresence Clariti is a much more stable solution. It has worked fine for a year or more after being implemented in some places.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate the solution’s scalability ten out of ten.

The solution's technical support has to be improved, especially after HP's acquisition of Polycom.

Neutral

The solution's features, such as audio fencing, speaker tracking facilities, group training facilities, and integration with other third-party devices, justify its price.

Polycom RealPresence Clariti is definitely more expensive than others in the market because of its high quality.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I've deployed this product for clients on-prem and we use it in our company on cloud. It's used to deploy meeting rooms. We are integrators, both from a technical and an architectural perspective. I'm a future workplace solution specialist.

The product increases the ability of Teams in cases when we need to collaborate with whiteboards or specific video-coms or audio-coms to install a meeting presence room. It does a good job of integrating with other software. 

I'd like to see a wider range of use cases for this product. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is scalable. We have around 1,000 users in our organization and about 20,000 users in other companies. Depending on the size of the deployment, it takes one or two people to carry out the implementation. 

Because we are partners, we get good technical support. 

Positive

We previously used Cisco but switched to Polycom because it was a cheaper solution. 

The initial setup is very easy, it's an administrator friendly solution. Deployment can take anywhere from a couple of days to weeks, depending on the size of the implementation. We have vendor engineers that deploy on our behalf. 

There are many different licensing models. We have a three-year license. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We build teleconferencing infrastructure based on Polycom.

The most valuable feature is its integration with solutions like Zoom and Teams for endpoints. The picture quality is high, and the conference sessions are stable. 

The firewall integration should be improved, but it depends on what works on the network from the customer side. In some situations, we used Poly endpoints with Cisco servers. The integration generally works well, but we had trouble finding the appropriate content-sharing protocols, which was the main problem. However, the audio and video are fine.

I have been using Polycom since 2012.

I rate Polycom nine out of 10 for stability. 

The scalability depends on the equipment used, but it's highly scalable. You can set it up in complex solutions with redundancy.

Currently, getting support in our region is challenging because the office in Moscow is closed. It's normally fine. 

Deploying Polycom is straightforward. We typically deploy everything on-premises because work in the public sector. It doesn't take time if it's an internal solution used within one office. It can be complex to set up connections with remote sites. That requires some complicated tasks that may take additional time. A simple installation takes a few days or a week.

You need to install virtual instances of software, media suites, DMA, and licensing, then make some adjustments according to the network from our customer side. Finally, you must deploy endpoint registration and test how it works. Deployment requires a person from our team and a couple from the customer's side.

Polycom's price is reasonable. It's somewhere in the middle. Polycom is cheaper than Cisco, but the quality is excellent. The price depends on the number of endpoints and the license level.  

The cost of the solution might be too high for small companies. However, they can save money by using Polycom hardware for the endpoints and integrating them with Zoom. Polycom is an effective solution, and they have a broader portfolio of cheaper products, such as the X30, X50, and the soundbar solution they recently released. 

I rate Polycom RealPresence Clariti eight out of 10. If you plan to implement Polycom, I recommend learning as much as you can to get the maximum benefit from the solution. 

For the public sector and defense sector, we're implementing more secure platforms like Poly. That means on-prem platforms. The customer is willing to use Poly since they're still open-based without any cloud signing and in everything else like Cisco SVI, for example. That's why, mainly, not in our country, but in our region, I can see, back seat, it's going well.

It's on-prem, which is great. You do not have any cloud-like instances. Even for licenses, everything is delivered and installed on the customer's site. 

They're all still open-based so customers can use each kind of endpoint from a different producer like Cisco.

It is being developed more now in the West. 

Clariti 2.0 is much more developed now than the first version which was quite obsolete. You can raise a hand. You can chat. You even have an option to go, to have a poll to upvote for features. It's quite improved starting with the previous Clariti solution.

What I'm pushing Poly for right now, is the ability to leverage the access for customization. For example, for APIs to be more flexible. The customer needs this platform to be a little bit more customized.

On the other hand, Poly is developing a new proprietary protocol that is called EVO. It's not yet implemented on the Poly endpoint. The idea of the Clariti 2.0 is good, however, they're still moving too slowly. Regarding Clariti 2.0, the documentation is not there. It's hard to find the documentation for the new platform to integrate it properly.

We've used the solution since 2007.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's scalable. It's only software. The only thing you need is licensing and more hardware if necessary. You can use your own hardware. 

Technical support is improving. It's better since they decided to move away from India to Western countries like Poland and the US again.

Neutral

I can't speak about the implementation process. I do not have information from my engineers that contains any complaints regarding how difficult it is, however, we do not have an admin guide to follow yet. That is not well-documented yet.

We have two people for installation and another two for maintenance, and there's a seven-day deployment timeline.

We are doing deployment and maintenance, however, we do not have documentation from Poly. What we are doing is using our own engineers and, based on their experience, they are pushing Poly to ask them how to deploy this configuration or that configuration. It will be much faster when having an admin guide and documentation that we can read.

In the sales process, it's not so relevant, ROI, as it was like 10 years before, mainly due to the fact that users are trying to move in a hybrid direction.

I'm implementing several platforms, the biggest one, the 2.0.

We are the value-add. What that means is we are in front of the customer one reseller, however, we are integrating the entire solution, and we are making, from the start point, the POC in front of the customer, to the endpoint, the implementation and maintenance.

It's important to have your proper lab if you are a system integrator in order to understand the technology and to play in your garden before going in front of the customer. This is the first rule. The second one is to use as much as you can, the Poly support, ad there are no yet admin guides and user guides yet.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.