Zendesk Reviews

My main use case for Zendesk is as an alternative to GitHub issues.

A quick specific example of how we used Zendesk day to day is that we'd review the task board every morning for stand up.

The kind of tickets I would typically see there were feature requests.

The best features Zendesk offers include being a good alternative to GitHub issues, but I don't know what else it offers beyond that.

When I say it's a good alternative to GitHub issues, it was just something different, and I'm not sure why exactly we ended up using that one over GitHub.

Zendesk has not positively impacted my organization.

Things mostly stayed the same in terms of workflow, communication, or ticket management when my team switched to Zendesk.

I don't have any suggestions on how Zendesk can be improved.

I have been working in my current field for eight years.

Zendesk is stable in my experience.

Zendesk's scalability is fine.

I'm not sure about the customer support for Zendesk.

We used GitHub issues, and I wasn't there when we switched to Zendesk.

I'm not sure how Zendesk is deployed in my organization; we just access it via a website.

I was not involved in the pricing, setup cost, and licensing.

I was not involved in evaluating other options before choosing Zendesk.

My advice to others looking into using Zendesk is that if you need an alternative to GitHub Actions or GitHub issues, this is worth looking at.

My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.

My overall review rating for Zendesk is 6.

My previous company used Zendesk for ITSM (IT Service Management) products and Jira for internal development, such as HR, finance, and other departments.

It was mostly used for internal purposes and integrations because it was mobile apps related to ride-dealing, like Uber. So, it was mainly for receiving requests from the customers and scanning the stuff.

It's a very stable tool, very powerful.  

It has a huge problem regarding the price. The price increases every year. Every year, they raise the price of the licenses, which makes a lot of limitations, and you have to pay more. So that's some conditions. 

Actually, most of the companies that use Zendesk need a customer experience or customer care department. However, Zendesk only works with chatbox or emailing services, but it can also use Genesys, VoIP, or voice sensors.

Additionally, Zendesk needs the administration panels to be easier because it's a very complex panel. You need to search for a lot of things to do, like a small job. So you have to do a lot of setup regarding the integration, and it's a little bit challenging to integrate any software in the vendor.

I have experience with this solution. I worked with it for five years. 

It is a stable product. I worked on it for five or five students. It's very stable.

Scalability is normal. Not very high. At that time, there were around 1100 end users using this solution. 

The support team is time-consuming, and they don't find the answer to our problem.

Because if you are doing your job by yourself, it will be a lot of aim to seek their support. But if you have, like, a support contract with them or something like that, there's the support when you go for a good position or if they can push it. You have to pay extra for better support.

Neutral

We decided to switch from Zendesk because of limitations for integrations. We were a tech company, and we needed more features, more add-ons, more conditions with a lot of tools that weren't accessible with Zendesk, so that's why we had to change it.

The initial setup is very difficult, and we had to use support help for the account setup.

You have to pay extra for better support. So it's not only the license that you pay for, but you have to pay extra for the support as well. The pricing is expensive.

Back then, we were paying $51 per license for agents and $89-90 per license for tech users.

We were paying around $2.25 million per year.

I would suggest using a trial version first and reading the logs before using it.

Overall, I would the solution a six out of ten because of the complexity of the tool and the high license price.

I have utilized Zendesk in my customer service roles and also used it to learn about Zendesk Explore for reporting. I mostly used the solution for customer service and ticketing systems.

I love how the tickets would auto-populate very quickly in Zendesk, especially when a call comes in.

Sometimes, the calls do not record, and your conversation is cut midway. When you want to do a call calibration, you realize that the call is incomplete. Zendesk's stability on inbound calls could be improved as compared to Talkdesk.

I have been using Zendesk for three years.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

I have previously used Talkdesk, Freshdesk, and 3CX.

From what I hear, Zendesk's pricing is a little expensive. One of the reasons for shifting from Zendesk to Talkdesk was cost efficiency.

Zendesk's integration with the macros for auto-responses has reduced the response times. The macros feature on Zendesk has actually made response time easy.

Zendesk is very efficient when it comes to integrating with other tools. In my role, where I handled compliance issues, other tools were integrated with the Zendesk system, which worked fine and was very efficient. I have never experienced lag when trying to pull information from the other systems integrated with Zendesk.

Zendesk is an easy tool to use, especially when considering integration with other systems.

I would recommend the solution to other users. When it comes to features, Zendesk Explore is perfect, and when it comes to the ticketing system, Zendesk is perfect. I recommend Zendesk to someone who likes to do an API with other tools.

When it comes to the calling feature, I would really not recommend Zendesk, especially when you experience issues like the conversation being cut off. If you have to do a QA for an agent, the calibrations will definitely not be right because the call gets cut.

Overall, I rate Zendesk eight and a half out of ten.

My use case for Salesforce Essentials is focused on gathering market insights for new feature releases and product launches. I utilize Zendesk to collect information from customer tickets regarding changes in features, new feature requests, and customer feedback helping me understand customer patterns and preferences, and guide my planning for product launches and updates.

This solition helps me on improving customer service by addressing issues related to UI complexity, user experience, and feature requests based on feedback gathered from Zendesk tickets.

For example, if customers express difficulty in navigating the platform or request new features, I use this information to make improvements and collaborate with the product team to implement necessary changes.

I found the user experience with vendors on Zendesk to be straightforward, especially when it comes to understanding and searching for specific tickets. The search and navigation tools are easy to use, and I haven't encountered any issues with delays or communication gaps in ticket resolutions. 

As per me, there arent much significant issues or areas for improvement with Zendesk, as my usage of it is limited. I appreciate its ability to organize tickets effectively based on tags, allowing me to easily gather and analyze customer feedback and requests. 

I have been using Zendesk for the past 2 years. 

The platform has been stable and mature, with no reported issues or difficulties in usage from our customer success teams.  

My experience with Salesforce Essentials has been positive in terms of scalability and I’ve witnessed organizations scale rapidly.

I believe Zendesk and FreshDesk are among the better tools available, especially for medium-sized businesses scaling up. But I haven’t used them personally. I've heard that Zendesk is more popular and commonly used in customer service-related functions.

I'm using the cloud version of Salesforce Essentials, so we haven't customized it using APIs or deployed any specific configurations.

I would rate Zendesk as 8 out of 10 based on my experience. There's room for improvement in terms of usability, navigation, and implementing AI elements like chatbots for quicker access to information. I would recommend Zendesk to others. 

Our customers do their customer support through Zendesk Support. We add our own automation into Zendesk Support to automate their tasks more. That's our basic functionality.

Zendesk Support has a lot of good APIs. They have support for triggers, whereby instead of us monitoring Zendesk Support's system for any change, it will notify us when a change happens. So it takes a lot of our load away.

The data you get when logged in to Zendesk Support differs from the data you get when you programmatically query Zendesk Support through its API because of a sync time delay. You get a new ticket on Zendesk and are able to view it in your browser, but when our program queries it for new tickets, we won't get that ticket. That takes some time to sync, and if the solution could speed it up, it would improve our work very much.

The solution’s stability could be improved.

Our customers have been using Zendesk Support for more than one year.

Sometimes, when I query for new tickets, I get open tickets and vice versa. Zendesk Support is not a stable solution because it has some bugs.

I rate Zendesk Support a seven out of ten for stability.

Three people are using Zendesk Support in my organization.

Zendesk Support’s initial setup is easy.

If you are using Zendesk Support programmatically, always check for inconsistencies and expect it to be unstable. Perform your own additional filtering on the data you receive to confirm whether the data you've received is what you are looking for. Also, catch the errors it reports sometimes.

Overall, I rate Zendesk Support a seven out of ten.

The solution is mainly used as a ticketing system with clients as well and between users, similar to Asana, which is kind of new in our company. Before that, we used to send tickets to other departments for certain cases and stuff like that, so we had a ticketing system with clients, communication with clients, and between other departments and that's largely how it was used.

The most valuable aspect is transparency. Everybody can see everything, including all of the tickets, even from different departments. It doesn't have many tags. It is not as time-consuming as Freshdesk, for example, is. There was literally just one link and you click on that link and the ticket is basically assigned to your name. That's pretty easy. There is a drop-down menu from where you just choose, let's say, the name under whom you want to assign the ticket, and then the ticket will be assigned and the person notified. 

When I first started, I was added as an employee, not as an administrator, and the access for an employee would allow you to see all of the tickets from all of the departments. You could assign tickets to different departments and you could actually remove tags if you needed to. After a while, we started having new hires and they were also added as employees. Their access was meant as employees. Then, Zendesk changed their terms and conditions, their licenses, and what those licenses actually have, including what type of access they offered and employees couldn't, for example, see all of the tickets from all of the departments. They couldn't really move, add tags, assign tickets to different departments, et cetera, however, even though they have the exact same access as I do. The features were limited, even though they had the same access as we did.

Since those features were now added into administrator access and you couldn't give administrative access to new hires, you can also see a lot more information for reports and stuff like that. This is basically none of their business, so this is why we changed to Freshdesk.

I've used Zendesk since 2018 as I also used it in my previous company for two years and then at my current company as well. I would say I'd use it for maybe three or four years. It's likely been three and a half years.

We rarely had issues with Zendesk. Even the workflow rarely gave us issues. Sometimes, from time to time, due to the fact that we receive a lot of different notifications, Zendesk would recognize it as spam, so we would receive a lot of our own important tickets in spam, so we had to remove it from spam and move it to the inbox. This was the only issue. However, this is what every email address does anyway when you send a lot of tickets from the same project.

The scalability was good. We had a lot of tickets and never had an issue.

We had 20 to 25 people using the solution. We had departments like customer support and operations on it. 

We've never directly dealt with technical support. Another department was responsible for support items.

We have implemented Asana recently and use it in a similar fashion. I've also used Freshdesk which had too much tagging and was too time-consuming.

If I could compare Zendesk support with other ticketing systems, like Asana or Freshdesk, Zendesk and Freshdesk are very similar as opposed to Asana. Asana is just for if you are creating tasks. Here, you actually send an email in Zendesk or Freshdesk. I feel like that's the main difference when it comes to Freshdesk and Zendesk. It's much more transparent, and it's very organized. With Freshdesk at the moment is not really automatic in terms of translations. You have to write everything in English and if you want to translate it to Spanish, then you have to copy and paste it to a different tab, and then from there, you have to translate it and then add it. With Zendesk, everything is transparent. As soon as you click send, the text is going to go translated.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

Users can create their own tags, and they have their own views which are very nicely organized so they can see what is happening at any given time. Users can see if somebody else is doing the same ticket or if somebody else is looking at the same ticket. If you click on a client's email, you can see all of the tickets, and all of the correspondence that you have with that email address. There are maybe three or four different statuses that a ticket can have so that it is not confusing. It's pretty straightforward, very transparent, neat-looking, and very well organized.

I would rate it ten out of ten.

One of our use cases of Zendesk Guide is to create a knowledge base. We also use it to host our videos and PDFs for customers. With Zendesk Guide, we have the Multibrand solution that we are leveraging, and we are creating multiple health centers, customized for each of our clients. 

We are working with the SaaS version of this solution. 

One of the benefits we have seen from Zendesk is that it's very easy to use. Once you have figured out the basic modalities, it's very easy to use and very easy to segregate your content between different headings. The navigation is very robust, which enables us to really see the entire health center. At the same time, it can let you go in a granular manner to a piece. It lets me break down my articles into multiple, small chunks of information. Recently, they introduced something called article reuse—I can write the article in one location, and then put it in different locations in the same health center, but only have to maintain that one article in terms of actually updating it. The content reuse feature is a very smart thing to have. 

One of the most valuable features is that Zendesk gives you a lot of configurability, and a lot of leeway in terms of customizing the look and theme. Zendesk offers you the facility to design your own landing page, as well as the look and feel of the entire knowledge base. At the same time, they offer themes that you can simply purchase and implement. Either way, it can really be turned into the right look and feel of the knowledge base required by our company, which is very important—if you have a bland-looking page, most of the time, people will lose interest. Zendesk also allows you to test the customizations before you publish it. It gives you a sandbox location where you can test everything new that you're trying to create and publish, which is very interesting. 

Another valuable feature is the security, which is very robust. The JWT and the SSO give us peace of mind, knowing that our content is secure and that nobody else can access it. They have tie-ups with various video platforms, so we can host our videos there, and then we can just add the code here once. Then, when the video changes, we don't have to update the code—it happens seamlessly. 

I could go on and on. Another valuable feature is that we can customize user access for content. In Zendesk Guide, we have various levels of approval which the content can go through before it is released. We can actually set the release date for particular content in the future, so that we don't have to keep track of it, and it automatically gets released then. Also, the labeling feature enables us to conduct very smart searches. 

Zendesk Guide could be improved by allowing us to put our assets in one location. What happens now for each article, for example, is we have to upload the images for that article to that location, so the image reuse is still not something that they have perfected. If they could allow us to update all the images in one location, and then pull the image from there, it would be easier when working on Multibrand projects. There are no Multibrand updates available—we have to update each brand manually. For my company, I have come up with an API tool which allows me to push the content to multiple brands together, but if you don't have something like that, you have to manually do it. 

They're still evolving, and though I feel like there is a lot that they can improve on, I am seeing ongoing improvement. Another improvement they could make is in regard to article editing. When you edit an article, the facilities provided aren't customizable. They could make it customizable and let the user choose their own font for headings and the paragraph, the number of headings they want, and just let us do a little bit more. When you add an image, even the resizing of the image is manual—they could provide an image resizing tool, to let us pick the size of the image, and make the process easier. 

As for additional features, I have noticed that Zendesk is concentrating more on the suite: messaging services, chatbot, etc. However, what they don't seem to realize is that most of their customers are using Zendesk for the knowledge base. They need to make the features within the knowledge base a little more robust. We are also looking for some enhancements. For example, I wanted a PDF download facility, but I just had to code it internally because Zendesk has an app, but you need to buy it and plug it in. 

I have been working with Zendesk Guide for almost three years. 

The stability and performance have been perfect. We have not had a single day of downtime, to date. 

As far as I've seen, this product doesn't require any maintenance. They are pretty smart about deploying new products, letting people know that it's all in there, and since it's a SaaS product, we don't have to handle manual updates. 

This solution is pretty easy to scale. You can put a lot of data in there—it doesn't seem to affect it at all. However, in terms of Multibrand, you have to make the updates manually. There is no feature to push to update to all the health centers. 

We are a six-people team, and we all work with Zendesk Guide. As far as usage, we have over 1,000 customers who are accessing Zendesk Guide, and we have more than 12 health centers that we have deployed. 

I have been in contact with Zendesk support. They have different levels with different levels of support. We are an Enterprise level, the highest that they have, so we have something called 24/7 online chat support. If we have a question, we are connected with a live agent, and they help us resolve our issue. The support is okay—I haven't had any issues. 

Before using Zendesk Guide, I was working with Confluence for almost a full year. Confluence makes it much easier for me to import a Word document and convert it into an article, whereas Zendesk doesn't allow you to do that very easily. It will ask you to upload it to Google Drive, and then from there you can import it. This isn't something most companies will allow, since Google Drive is not a very secure site to upload your confidential data. Downloading a PDF was also much easier in Confluence—I could just go there, click, select "PDF", and the entire case would get exported as a PDF. With Zendesk, in order to convert any section, article, or category into a PDF, you will either have to buy their app or do your own in-house coding. 

The setup process was pretty straightforward, and they have a very smart way of doing it. They have something called a brand, so we just go there, key our credentials, generate the certificate, merge it, and then we take that code and put it in our software, and it goes live. So the merging of Zendesk's health center is a pretty simple process. As the documentation writer, I was involved in the process, and we had our IT team handle the connection. In total, the process took about 24 hours. 

Zendesk's licensing is not cheap. For Enterprise, we are paying $200 per agent. It's a per-month cost, so it's pretty steep. There are some services you need to pay extra for. For example, with Zendesk Guide, we had to buy the most expensive offering in order to get Multibrand and everything. We also had to pay a lot of money for themes. 

Compared to this, Confluence doesn't work out very cheap either, but then Confluence is a game of numbers—if you have a lot of people in your company and you're planning to buy it for everybody, then even the documentation team can leverage that. 

To those considering implementing this solution, I would say Zendesk Guide could be suitable for your company if you're planning to leverage all its features: the ticketing, talking to customers, using the chatbot, etc. It makes more sense when you are using it as a comprehensive sellout product. If you are only using it for the knowledge base, it may not be the best product. 

I rate Zendesk Guide an eight out of ten. If I were rating it only as a knowledge base, I would rate it a seven and a half out of ten. 

We use Zendesk as an internal tool, mainly as a help desk. Although we haven't utilized all the features, such as the chatbot, it functions effectively for triaging work within different parts of our organization.

Tracking analytics through Zendesk has given us insight into request complexity and helped maintain SLA compliance. By tracking not just closure but closure against certain KPIs, we've experienced enhanced productivity and accountability.

The most valuable feature is the trackability of incoming requests. The system keeps a comprehensive history of work requests, making it a useful tool for our internal processes.

Report generation is still slightly tricky and not very customizable as per my inquiries. It would be advantageous to have an AI layer that can analyze incoming requests and generate summaries, as well as a knowledge base similar to ServiceNow's.

I have been working with Zendesk for more than fifteen years.

Zendesk is easy to customize and integrate into existing workflows, as per my understanding.

I am not currently aware of the exact pricing, but since we are still using Zendesk, it appears to be at a reasonable price point.

Zendesk seems to be a more cost-effective product compared to ServiceNow, which offers more features.

I recommend maintaining a manageable price point.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.