NICE CXone Mpower

My main use case for NICE CXone is to monitor phone calls for my direct reports at a help desk.

I monitor phone calls for my direct reports by setting up the program, programming phone calls and types of phone calls for my agents, whether it be hardware, software, and for different departments as well, such as the B2B line.

In addition to monitoring phone calls, I also use NICE CXone to set up programming for my agents through workforce engagement management or the WEM, AI, and analytics into our cloud platform without requiring any type of third-party tool.

The best features NICE CXone offers for me include its user-friendly nature, which allows me to navigate within the application without any stress.

NICE CXone is user-friendly because it has a learning curve at the same time, but I appreciate that it incorporates AI.

Regarding the features of NICE CXone, the guidance is there, and I appreciate the automated virtual agents or autopilot which is present across text and voice channels.

NICE CXone has positively impacted my organization by seamlessly joining our calls without any call drops, allowing me to listen to a call with ease, and making everything really easy to use and self-explanatory.

Since using NICE CXone, I have improved metrics such as call quality, agent productivity, and customer satisfaction. The calls come in nicely and it works seamlessly with our agents, enabling one call to get in, calls to get up, calls answered, and then the next call to go to the other direct report.

I do not see any issues with NICE CXone as everything is user-friendly, and I have not run into any issues personally.

Regarding improvements, I can confidently say there is not a need for any. I appreciate it the way it is, and it is a very good tool.

I have been using NICE CXone for about five years.

Since using NICE CXone, I have improved metrics such as call quality, agent productivity, and customer satisfaction. The calls come in nicely and it works seamlessly with our agents, enabling one call to get in, calls to get up, calls answered, and then the next call to go to the other direct report.

NICE CXone's scalability for my organization works out very well, as we are a help desk environment with a lot of agents that use our phone system and telephony systems, making the use of NICE CXone highly useful and customizable for us.

The customer support for NICE CXone is very good and very informational.

I would rate the customer support as a 10.

Before NICE CXone, I used Genesis, but we heard NICE CXone was much more customizable, easier to use, and better for onboarding.

For others looking into using NICE CXone, I would advise them that it is a very good tool.

I feel that everyone who owns a business and a help desk should utilize NICE CXone as it is highly customizable and easy to learn.

I rate this review as an 8.

NICE CXone is used primarily for a customer-facing knowledge website. The customer-facing knowledge website is fully crowdsourced, so information is collected from customer-facing employees, use cases, tutorials, and best practices, which is then written up and published for customers to access for free with no login required.

Before choosing NICE CXone, other options were evaluated, including Salesforce, which was necessary because it was already in use by the company, and using it would have been free. However, it did not fit the needs for a variety of reasons, and there was another product in consideration, but I do not have any memory of what that was.

NICE CXone offers features that are easy to use, and I appreciate many features such as tagging and variables. The ease of use is really valuable since we are only two people without any technical support or resources to do development work for us, so we needed something that was super plug-and-play, and this fit the bill.

The tagging and variables specifically help with the workflow as they are designed to be used through custom classifications that allow us to create subpages, enabling us to further divide content into logical categories. For example, we might have a use case that has 50 articles in it, but we do not want to just list 50 article names on a page, which is not very usable. By using custom classifications to tag by product, add-on, contributor, or a variety of other factors, we can actually use the site's functionality to auto-sort articles into more concrete categories.

NICE CXone has positively impacted the organization as the website was built from scratch; I was hired to build this website six years ago, and it has grown phenomenally. It is integrated into all sorts of programs, different applications, and different campaigns, and I would not have been able to do that without a site that is very easy to use.

One inconvenience is that because we are crowdsourced, we have hundreds of contributors every year, with most people only submitting one article, maybe two, so it does not make sense to pay for licenses for all of those people. This leads to some intermediary manual copy-paste processes because we just cannot have everybody working in the system itself, making it a little bit problematic for maintaining a source of truth.

The main issues with NICE CXone are the lack of ability to integrate with some internal things that we want to do; it has to do with the way the system is designed, which is complex. We wanted to integrate with our internal system for instant translations, and we were not able to do that, along with a couple of other things that illustrate that it is kind of an isolated system to itself, making it pretty hard to tap into and grow even further.

There are a couple of little issues with reporting that have not been very good, but really, the system is very functional.

I have been using NICE CXone for over five years.

NICE CXone is stable, although the company seems to have a lot of outages; nevertheless, those generally do not last very long.

NICE CXone's scalability is very good concerning the number of articles that could be hosted on the site. However, as far as the authoring experience goes, it is really bad, and it would be very cost-prohibitive to have the number of licenses needed to smooth out and make the authoring processes more efficient.

Customer support for NICE CXone is good; it has always been good, except when they decided to change their model and get rid of their customer support representatives a year and a half ago. We now find ourselves in a random pool without a dedicated representative, which is really frustrating.

Before using NICE CXone, Zendesk was used as the solution, but it was not what was wanted; it was just too basic and did not have the features needed.

The experience with NICE CXone's pricing, setup cost, and licensing was fine when it was MindTouch before it was bought by the current company. However, the current contract is a little vague and confusing, and the instant translation pricing is absolutely horrible.

I have not seen a direct return on investment from NICE CXone; since our site does not require a login, we do not really have good metrics on specifically tracking whether a customer was going to churn. Our mission is adoption and renewals, which involves both customers accessing the site directly and customer success people using the site with their customers to prescribe tutorials and use cases, so the general growth serves as a sign of success.

I do not have specific metrics in front of me that show the positive impact of NICE CXone, but we have grown page views and users phenomenally year on year. This fiscal year just ended in July, and we were probably up about 30% from last year, and it has been about the same every year—it just keeps growing and growing. Internally, success is judged by the number of different groups that integrate with us, so different groups come to us and say they want to use an API to pull content into their application, or they want to start using the site to publish all of their content for a specific industry or purpose because ours is the best place for it; there is no other logical place for it. The internal growth in usage and demand for content on our site truly reflects our success.

NICE CXone's AI capabilities regarding governance and security are not being used. NICE CXone's AI capabilities are not being used, so I cannot comment on the accuracy and reliability of output.

I do not have specific advice for others looking into using NICE CXone, but I suggest doing thorough due diligence, making a requirements matrix, and ensuring it fits their needs. I would rate this solution an 8 out of 10 overall.

My main use case for NICE CXone is digital transformation, bringing in multiple channels for our clients to serve digital interactions, automations, agent handling, and a customer experience.

NICE CXone acts as an orchestrator layer, with multiple channels being the way people reach out or the channel which they utilize coming back to NICE CXone. Being an orchestrator, it knows exactly where interactions need to be sent, whether to a prescribed path, an agent, or a different product altogether for self-servicing. I primarily focus on handling digital interaction intents, utterances, outcomes, and escalation to agents.

I have multiple use cases, but on a high level, NICE CXone comes with multiple product integrations. It is not just about routing, but also offers components like feedback management, QM, and WFM. This integrated suite supports the overall contact center operations and experience.

The best feature that NICE CXone offers, which is very recent, is the Copilot. This Copilot works in conjunction with the agent workspace and serves as a helper product for an agent while engaging in a conversation. It helps bring in articles from a KM repository if available and integrates with multiple resources, both internal and external to NICE. It also provides hints of sentiments and the luxury of performing specific tasks, making that specific item or product look very promising.

NICE CXone has impacted my organization positively through deployment. I am not utilizing NICE CXone as an end client, but what we are working for and what has been achieved so far is the automation, which is something any platform would do. We are trying to automate many things, avoiding intense things that escalate to agents and striving to self-service a lot of information. It gives us the luxury that the end customer can reach out from any specific channel, with just one orchestrator to manage that.

I think NICE CXone can be improved as it is currently an evolving product. It evolves rapidly, with many products or integrations coming in. For example, they are offering new integrations with a specific product called Amelia and a new feature called Cognigy, which promise a lot for the future. However, being a NICE consumer or developer for these instances and products currently, it becomes challenging due to documentation issues and the instability of some products. NICE has potential for improvement, but I also see much ongoing work, with documentation not fully supporting it and the system possibly lacking some key features or configurations, leading to problems.

Other improvements needed for NICE CXone include reviewing and enhancing the support they provide.

I have been using NICE CXone for the last five to six years.

NICE CXone does not seem stable at this point, but based on my experience of six to seven years, it generally is a stable product.

When discussing NICE CXone's scalability, I would say it is fair. It provides most of the essential features, protocols, and integrations available in the market. However, it does not allow for much customization according to specific requirements. Therefore, I would rate its scalability as fair—not very good, but not bad either, and good enough.

I believe customer support at NICE CXone can be greatly improved. There is a lot of feedback regarding the experience with NICE CXone, and they need to review their supporting structures. There have been consistent improvements since I started using NICE CXone, but there is still room for betterment. I would rate customer support a seven on a scale of one to ten.

I have previously used Avaya as a unified UCN contact center, unified communications, and contact center system. I have utilized it extensively, having performed many transformations myself. The shift was due to legacies, migrating to the cloud, and the benefits of switching services between providers quickly, primarily driven by the rapid advancements in AI capabilities. This transition helps in cutting down on license costs, data center expenses, and minimizing the number of calls reaching agents. This is why I am transitioning from existing Avaya, Verint, or Genesys on-premise systems to NICE CXone.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing suggests they are neither very simple nor overly complicated, but rather complicated due to a lack of accessible information. NICE has its own terminology that relates back to various suites and products. NICE encompasses a bundle of many products, bringing in numerous SKUs and different terminologies that can overwhelm someone unfamiliar with NICE. For those of us in the industry for a while, it makes sense, but overall, one must consult NICE for SKU sets, licenses, and everything. Better documentation or references could simplify this process, and I believe NICE is working on it, but it is not available at this point.

I cannot share specific return on investment metrics at this moment, but we have seen an impact on customer satisfaction, especially among tech-savvy individuals who enjoy exploring the system. Overall, these systems depend on how they are curated for end users, affecting various metrics. I have observed positive trends regarding CSAT scores, with fewer call transfers back to agents, and users actively engaging in self-service. While I do not have clear numbers on hand right now, the feedback has been positive.

I evaluated other options before choosing NICE CXone, specifically exploring Amazon Connect and Genesys Cloud.

My advice to others looking into using NICE CXone is to look closely at the product capabilities and how integrated the setups are, especially for key personas like customers and agents. The major impacts will be on these two groups. The customer experience significantly depends on how you curate it, and the product functionality and features also matter. Evaluating your system should include how well it integrates with CRMs. If you are thinking about transformation, assess all angles, particularly your CRM and CCaaS system. If your service runs on AWS, NICE being part of it would be a better fit, making many processes more feasible. If your cloud provider offers services in multiple platforms, I recommend considering those alternatives carefully.

Copilot seems to impact my day-to-day work and agent efficiency positively as it helps agents during conversations by providing a lot of key information. It renders down articles according to the live conversation, which is quite nice to have. It assists with sentiments, specific answers, tips, and tricks. When considering that we are handling a multiple omnichannel setup, keeping that context and information related to that specific channel or conversation becomes very critical where Copilot helps out.

I have seen specific outcomes or metrics from these automations or orchestrations as we are progressing on that front. I have implemented multiple products, which have impacted both parties, the end customer and the agent. For the end customer, things become easier because they can navigate and self-service a lot of information by themselves, which is a great feature for end users who know what they want to get done and are familiar with the system. It becomes so easy to accomplish tasks. NICE provides this information, and on the agent side, many new products like Copilot make the agent's life easier, allowing integrations with different platforms like MSD and Salesforce. This prevents agents from needing to shuffle between their omnichannel setup, as they can work through it all in one workspace. A combination of these two elements yields positive impact, and we see metrics indicating self-servicing where calls are not getting escalated to agents. Feedback has improved significantly.

Regarding NICE CXone's AI capabilities, it is native to AWS, relying heavily on AWS's policies. As an end customer, you may not have to worry much because of the cloud setup, but we do conduct our own reviews on how our data is stored, as multiple products come into the picture, adding some complexity. Overall, since it is hosted on Amazon, many policies from Amazon apply to NICE CXone as well.

When considering NICE CXone's AI capabilities, I think the accuracy and reliability of output are improving. NICE recently acquired Cognigy as an AI platform, which is relatively new to the market. They provide many integrations, and Cognigy certainly stands out. In contrast, NICE also has some in-house products, like Copilot, which I find to be key, with Copilot being particularly useful at this point. Cognigy seems promising on paper, although I have not fully experienced its capabilities yet. I would rate this review a six out of ten overall.

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.

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.