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.
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 …
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 …
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 …
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
Cisco CUCM hands-down beats Genesys for phone provisioning just because of the supported devices. Cisco handsets are leaps and bounds more consistent to provision and easier to troubleshoot than any phone model currently offered by Genesys directly.