Contentful vs. Enghouse Interactive Contact Centers

It's a great all rounder for content projects. It's easy in the basics and powerful in the complex, data heavy scenarios. Extending the platform is straightforward and the SDK gives you everything you need. If you have many many varying content types , it gets expensive and perhaps not the best choice .

Incentivized

Enghouse Interactive Contact Centers is well suited for organizations with existing Microsoft solutions e.g. Lync/Skype for business infrastructure/Teams, Those who run Busy (1000+ calls/day) OMNI channel contact centres and depend on quality management/Quality assurance. I would say less appropriate for small to medium organizations that do not have existing PABX infrastructure.

Incentivized

• Flexible. This CMS can be easily extended and provide access to dynamic content
• Simple. The WYSWG is very easy to work with and identifying pages and content in the system is fairly easy
• Clean Interface. The interface is clean and uncluttered keeping focus on the content and not other factors.

Incentivized

• Allows management to easily monitor activity for calls, callers, users, and queue management
• Relatively simple UI allows users to effectively manage their communication sessions
• Provides in-depth insights to communication and work activity metrics

Incentivized

• Contentful uses "references" to allow you to build very modular content. If I have a "slider" content type, I can create a "slide" content type which references a "button" content type, and so forth. This works well, but I occasionally wish there was a better solution for one-off content, like a settings page. Currently, this is done for creating an entire content type called "settings" with a single entry. Not a big deal, but not ideal, either.
• There are a few quirks with GatsbyJS integration, etc, but these issues are being fixed and improved upon very quickly.
• A minor gripe, but Contentful does not have a way to organize fields within an entry. Entries with many fields are somewhat tiresome to scroll through.

Incentivized

• Sound Alerts
• Detail of who hangs up the call
• Less expensive support

Incentivized

Price. Easy to use. Support.

Incentivized

It is a very easy to use and configure application. I find that it is on the user to manage the content after the models have been created, yet I still do not encounter issues finding or creating new components for our site. It is easy to set up and easy to navigate.

Incentivized

Easy to use and much more organized as a single platform versus multi. The layout is clean and easy to read and we don’t have to worry about certain users safe guarding data or content then losing it when they leave the company. It’s a one stop shop for imagery

Incentivized

Enghouse Interactive Contact Centers compared to Zeacom is very powerful in terms of features. The support for integrating with third-party software/hardware is better, and it is much simpler to use because less training is required to upskill the contact center staff. Comes with a lot of documentation and interactive guides/manuals.

Incentivized

• Contentful has saved us valuable development time that was previously spent doing deploys for minor content updates.
• Contentful has helped us maintain consistent documentation, reducing time needed to review for consistency.
• Can't say we've really experienced any negative ROI impacts from using Contentful, but we've run into some limitations in adding too many content models and the next pricing tier is substantially more expensive.

Incentivized

• Using Enghouse to manage our inbound and outbound call communication has allowed for us to focus more time on call quality and trends, rather than how to manage the call load and where to allocate calls.
• The time spent managing server blips and failovers remains a detractor for our teams.

Incentivized