Call Manager is a unified call control center from Cisco that supports enterprise collaboration functions across the spectrum of IP telephony, video & web conferencing, and messaging. Features include call forwarding, call back, call transfer, ad hoc conferencing, and call park.
N/A
RingEX
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
RingEx is a cloud-based VoIP solution available via computer mobile application. It features video and audio conferencing, desktop phone rentals, collaboration tools, and integrations with other business applications. Plans are available on a monthly, per user subscription basis.
I would say it is a tie with IP office. This is also a complex solution that's usually managed by a service provider but offers high quality via phones that are excellent in sound quality and overall reputation for reliability.
Cisco Unified Communications Manager is a great competitor to Avaya Aura, whereas both solutions provide the client an Enterprise - Grade UC solution. I would prefer Cisco Unified Communications Manager because most corporate networks run on a Cisco backend core, and assigning …
CUBE is a robust gateway works in conjunction with Cisco Unified Communications Manager for providing PSTN calling facility. CUBE is easy to set up and manage and it has lots of security features. SRST is one of the best feature where in case of a network issue with the Cisco …
Avaya Aure requires lots of system maintenance and requirements. Also, Avaya cm does not have a graphical user interface. Avaya deployment requires lots of VMs and this is not acceptable for a clients 3CX is very cheap but they are very vulnerable to the attacks. Also they …
Overall Satisfaction with Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Call Manager) in general is more a telephony platform that a Unified Communications suite, but it could fit smaller companies or certain industries with specific requirements or needs, like hospitality.
As per the comments earlier, Cisco's focus has finally moved to Cloud and Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Call Manager) primarily stays as it solves specific business problems that Cloud-based platforms are trying to solve, slowly but surely. Cisco Unified Communications …
Most commonly used here in our country is Avaya; they pretty much do the same as the Cisco Unified Communications Manager. But for me, Cisco products are more reliable and tested so I prefer using this as our mode of communication for our entire organization. It keeps the …
The Cisco Call Manager application has been around for much longer than many of the competitors. As such, they have had plenty of time to resolve bugs and increase the feature set that comes natively with this solution. One of the biggest factors for us was the professional …
Avaya is extremely expensive for a corporate telephony infrastructure, its a product designed for the callcenter so it makes it even impossible to go with it for just corporate telephony.
Cisco Call Manager is not just cheaper but also much simpler to use.
Because of the complexity and quantity of users and remote offices distributed along several countries Cisco Unified Call Manager was the best option that suits all our needs and requirements also the most affordable alternative, and in terms of future projects the most robust …
We have been a Cisco based shop and have looked at other cloud voice options such as MS Teams pbx, and others, but ultimately, the features, endpoints, and reliability of Cisco has been the common factor in staying with them as our voice provider. Their integrations, room …
CUCM is actually our old system that we're currently transitioning away from. While CUCM certainly has more features than the Microsoft Teams phone system, and it's far more customizable, what we really needed currently was a cloud system that allowed more options for remote …
The number one point for which I would choose the Call Manager is because it has a wide level of scalability. You can have it in a company with 200 phones or up to 10000. In addition, Cisco TAC offers excellent support for when there is a disaster or you need to make some …
CUCM can grow to any scale you want. You can have a small amount of users, to tens of thousands of phones to support any size your company grows to. Toll bypass via routing calls over the WAN as well as an extensive Unity voicemail system allows for efficient routing of your …
We choose the Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Call Manager) for the following reasons: 1- Great features from the customer's perspective. 2- More stability and scalability for large companies
We've used 3Com/HP VCX before HP pulled the plug. Feature to feature, in some cases VCX did things better than Call Manager. VCX's GUI interface was very simple to navigate. Even over the years, VCX made it easy to train someone as an admin within a day and that person would be …
We had a great experience with Cisco IP phone communicator and this was the main reason why this new solution was purchased. Some members were more likely to purchase Skype for Business solutions but in the end, the good experience with Cisco solutions made the difference.
I've used CUCM and it's related products for over 25 years but in the middle of that time I managed a network that had hosted voip, so I know the difference. Hosted voip can't do literally everything like CUCM can do, but it's WAY simpler to operate and manage. Plus the end …
The lack of support partners for Skype for Business is one of the reasons CUCM stacks up against it. The software itself from MS is not bad, but it's hard to find support. Also, Cisco offers a full-stack solution in the same box, while the Skype for Business architecture is way …
We've had the system for a number of years and the technology has changed over that time. We anticipate this system will be functional for us for at least 10 years. At that time, we'll start evaluating new technology to see if the Opex model is better in the long run than the …
Ultimately it will come down to the administrator's preference. Cisco has led the market for some time. But Avaya continues to make advancements that are comparable to Cisco. Microsoft is also attempting to break into the market but does [not] have the end to end solution like …
No other evaluated solutions provided the required scale and availability in combination with the central solution approach. All other solutions required more onsite equipment to provide the same services or had issues to provide services on a global scale
We switched from GoTo's platform with pieces of Teams. At that time, the complexity and difficulty of integrating all of the features and connecting them to get a simple platform that was stable and easy to train weren't available elsewhere.
RingEX provides better service and features at a competitive price. There really is no comparison between the two solutions. Spectrum Business gives us reliable land line phone service with multiple lines and reliable business internet. Adding new lines is a physical experience …
RingEX overall is significantly better than Kixie. It's more reliable, has better features, and is significantly easier to use. Higher cost, but at the end of the day, telephony is one of the most important aspects of my business, and not one where cutting costs is the top …
Ooma is terrific and has a very reasonable price point, but doesn't scale the way we needed. MiCloud was a terribly complicated and unreliable service when we used it. RingEX has offered the functionality that we need for our entire staff and has been reliable.
RingEX sales team was the most responsive team. Zoom was not as mature and did not have a fax solution like RingEX had. 8x8 sales process was a disaster and their finance team began billing us during the sales process as if we were a customer. We could tell 8x8 didn't focus on …
Before landing on RingEX, I took recommendations from other business partners as well as searched reviews online in order to understand the pros and cons of other options. I preferred the cost point of other options, but committed to RingEX because the functionality and package …
There is a more reliable connection and communication. The dashboard is easier to use, and the reports that can be generated are more in tune with our business needs. It is easy to review calls and pull them, which was much harder with Vonage.
Better. The Kixie system is cheaper, but it is such a pain to use and interact with. often have audio issues, tech issues, etc. RingEX is far superior, although the price is certainly higher. I needed something reliable, so RingEX was the move.
We didn’t have nearly enough options or automated voice options with Google. RingEX focuses solely on communication and excelled at it, such a robust software.
Nextiva's service did not always work. Calls sometimes did not come through or go out. Their customer service team was not quick at solving issues. The app was glitchy and did not always allow you to login. I have never had an issue like this with RingEX.
This was a solution that we could not only use in house as our primary VOIP service, but we could also support and resell to our member offices. The cost savings and deals that RingEX will work out to win new business has been a major win for both ourselves and our customers.
We received quotations for 9 solutions (including RingCentral) but overall, whilst not the cheapest solution, RingCentral came out on top for value for money, without compromising on features & accessability/ease of use.
Other than NFON, we also looked at other solutions, …
I haven't used Vonage in a while, but we never had issues with it and we've had several issues with RingEX. This could be based on how the franchisor has chosen to implement the product.
RingEX beat Fuze in every single department: cost, function, reliability, features. It is more stable than Microsoft Teams although not as widely adopted only because it's not Microsoft. 8x8 while a decent platform, just was not as "mature" in its application as RingEX. We …
The reporting part and the easy implementation, as well as the support provided convinced us to make the transition and improve the services provided. A very important part is the data where we must support our decisions, without easy to download or create reports, it was all a …
We ultimately chose to go with RingEX because of their unified interface. At the time that we purchased their service, there wasn't another software that did exactly what RingEX does.
During the tender process, we met with several other vendors. During this phase, we realized that RingEX was the only vendor we were investigating, and it was its own telecom provider – instead of offering phone software running on someone else’s network. So, we figured, ‘Why …
RingEX provided a more cost effective and complete solution than the competitors we evaluated. Reliability and call quality was of paramount concern for us. RingEX provided a higher level of reliability than many of the
competitors we evaluated.
The Cisco Unified Communications Manager platform would be most suited for the below scenarios. 1. An organization with very restricted policies and compliance where can't move to cloud-based solutions for data security. They can install the CUCM on-premises. 2. An organization that is still on a legacy phone system could adopt CUCM to save costs and have better services.
When setting up a new user with a phone. I can call in their support line. They followed me through every step of setting up the new phone. Our office has very specific settings, and our support staff will walk you through the completion. Even do test calls, making sure the user is properly set up for voicemails, faxes, or any type of notifications.
CUCM is overly complex and requires a very capable engineer to maintain it. Similarly, implementing anything new requires a great deal of specialized knowledge of CUCM.
CUCM is difficult to troubleshoot because of it's complexity.
CUCM is expensive licensing and they nickel and dime you with a plethora of tiny little license charges for every little feature. They have the most convoluted licensing models, ever, for their CU products in general.
Customer support is rudimentary. They should improve tier 1 customer support's ability to understand our needs rather than asking customers to reinstall the app
Revolving door of account managers, which causes loss of continuity in discussing opportunities
Analytics is not complete. Details about faxing and web meetings is missing.
We switched to RingEX for ease of administration, flexibility of integration (fax, web meetings, chat client, mobile app) and competitive price. Although the system has had a few quirks as it's been relying on our network much more heavily and integrating with our next-gen firewall, I can't speak highly enough of what RingEX has done for our business. I love it and can't wait to renew for a longer period of time at an even more competitive rate.
Although it's very easy to use, once you understand the concepts of IP telephony, as I said before, I think Cisco could have improved the management interface of the platform, adding modern technologies and the design language of the other platforms like DNA Center, etc. This interface hasn't had a substantial improvement for about 10 years
Once you get used to the features of the system, it is extremely easy to find what you need. Everything is all on one place which makes the usability phenomenal. It is very user-friendly, and everything you need is mainly on the RC app. There is a separate window for your Max Agent, and everything is spelled out so you rarely have a question where something is.
It is quite reliable, we have the support of being able to identify failures and escalate it, also monitor the failures that are posted on the web about the status of the failures and evolutions. Its easy start-up and access allow us to have better performance and productivity, which in the long run turns into benefits.
Occasional bandwith issues. In addition to this, I have one individual whose calls are blocked. We were not able to determine whether this was a RingEX or a carrier issue.
CUCM is supported by most third-party vendors for related products, so it makes finding solutions to specific needs easy. Also Cisco TAC is very knowledgeable, and we have never run into a problem they have not been able to resolve. Usually they are resolved without the need to escalate tickers either.
I have called RingEX a few times for assistance in setting up call handling or implementing changes in our call handling structure. The wait time to speak with an agent is usually minimal and the ones I have spoken to are excellent at walking me thru what changes I am trying to make as well as ensuring I understand what is being done so I can handle it myself next time if the need arises.
If someone has an existing system I tell them to keep that running initially and keep RingEX separate initially until the system is configured and tested to one's satisfaction. After testing and configuration is completed, then roll over the main phone numbers to the new RingEX system. I've seen one person who immediately flipped over to RingEX without properly configuring/testing the software and had many issues with missed customer calls until I helped him sort out his configuration.
The Cisco Call Manager application has been around for much longer than many of the competitors. As such, they have had plenty of time to resolve bugs and increase the feature set that comes natively with this solution. One of the biggest factors for us was the professional services/support that comes along with using any Cisco product.
We switched from GoTo's platform with pieces of Teams. At that time, the complexity and difficulty of integrating all of the features and connecting them to get a simple platform that was stable and easy to train weren't available elsewhere.
We have 75 users and 85 phones on the system and have yet to have any noticeable outages. The system just works all of the time without issues. Our old VOIP system on Voyant would go out all the time for multiple hours. RingEX is much more stable and reliable.