Atos Unify OpenScape Session Border Controller vs. Cisco Unified Border Element (CUBE)

If you are in an environment that is primarily Cisco and switching from PRI circuits or other non-SIP circuits and are generally considered to be on an enterprise-grade platform, CUBE is likely a solid choice for you. From my experience, I cannot speak to the video handling that CUBE offers as we do not employ that, so hopefully other reviews will provide insight on that.

Incentivized

• B2B UA
• SIP profile
• Multiple tenants

Incentivized

• Syntax input should be easier to read and write. For I.E: voice, translations are similar to SED (Stream Editor). Sometimes regular expression is hard to understand for new users.
• Virtual Cube software stability
• Cube redundancy setup (defining control interfaces, tracks, setting thresholds and reloads). Redundancy setup should be an automated process, where a user can initiate a setup wizard and then just input key information such as the IP address of Cubes and the exclusive IP address, etc.

Incentivized

The flexibility is great for leveraging SIP profiles and dial peers.

Incentivized

I've been using Cube for years and I like the way Cube handles a call. Minimum administration required once everything is set up correctly.

Incentivized

We previously used other SBC's but weren't satisfied with the performance. The support wasn't there and constant RMA's for defective hardware. Although the CUBE is expensive, it saves time and resources on support. Robust features and no downtime in 3 years. I don't believe many vendors offer products to compete in this space. You will regret to decision to go with cheaper SBC's.

Incentivized

• Positive impact, saving on monthly phone bills due to sip trunk migration.
• Positive, using a couple of CUBEs to concentrate several SIP trunk.
• Positive, using a couple of CUBEs to route several branch outbound and inbound calls.

Incentivized