Genesys Multicloud CX (formerly Genesys Engage, or PureEngage) is the Genesys customer engagement platform for enterprises. It is designed to be flexible for enterprises, who often have multiple and multi-national locations (including outsourcing) and large peak volumes and populations.
N/A
Lyssna
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
Lyssna (formerly UsabilityHub) is a user research platform used to test digital products with real users and gain insights into their audience. Its tools and features help Lyssna to optimize users' designs and create more engaging user-friendly experiences. Lyssna is a research platform, offering a broad range of testing features including: Five Second Testing - Used to quickly test the effectiveness of landing pages, messaging and designs by showing users a…
$0
per month (3 seats included)
UserTesting
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
UserTesting helps UX researchers, designers, product teams, and marketers gather actionable insights through research, testing, and feedback. With a network of real people ready to share their perspectives, UserTesting enables organizations to make customer-first decisions at scale.
N/A
Pricing
Genesys Multicloud CX (discontinued)
Lyssna
UserTesting
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Free
$0
3 seats included
Starter
$99
per month 5 seats included
Growth
$199
per month 15 seats included
Enterprise
Contact Sales
custom seats
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Genesys Multicloud CX (discontinued)
Lyssna
UserTesting
Free Trial
No
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Discount available for annual plan. Panel responses are priced seperately.
Lyssna is certainly the least expensive, most basic and easy to use out of the range of usability tools I have used in the past. Depending on your maturity as a business and the projects that you are doing, this can be a great starting point before scaling up.
We have evaluated two other platforms - UserZoom and UsabilityHub. We ultimately decided to maintain our relationship with UserTesting due to the overall usability and the functionality that it offers. The features better suited our needs, and it met a price point that worked …
UserTesting is more robust. We also use UsabilityHub, but for different purposes - one off tests that don't require many screens but do require more responses.
Solution is extremely agile and flexible. The new generation of containerized solution would be a game changer since it brings the ease of deployment and ability to get the innovations to a new total different place. I believe it is really hard to find in the competition who would have something similar or even close
UsabilityHub is well suited for remote unmoderated testing. Responses are captured very quickly and live updates allow the user to keep track of how the test is performing. The types of testing that make the most sense to use on UsabilityHub are preference test, first click test, navigational, and design surveys. It is less appropriate for one-on-one testing and lengthy questionnaires.
UserTesting has been great for moderated customer interviews/usability testing as well as for unmoderated testing of messaging, imagery, prototypes and live experiences. I would say that the scope of what you want needs to be limited, as the participants are only paid so much and tests are supposed to not exceed a certain amount of time. For customer interviews, I think it can be difficult to onboard customers to UserTesting if they have never used it before. If I set up interviews, I don't even have them use the UserTesting scheduling tool, I actually set up all the interviews with the customers myself through the tool (being mindful of time zones!). When we run the meeting, they really don't even know UserTesting is involved. Might be nice for UserTesting to allow the upload/connecting to of a Zoom interview and let it do the transcription/analysis from there.
VHT as a stand alone model can be easily plugged into to the current call routing with minimal changes and it works like charm.
Platform SDKs are a powerful tool that help integrate with other third party solutions or to build custom made applications.
The whole routing solution is amazing . With user friendly composer, you have the option of building both VRUs and routing strategies. And, they are very easy to deploy.
The level of details for report customization is another strong point.
Genesys needs to pick up the pace with application upgrades. We see more and more issues with Genesys applications falling behind the operating systems versions. We need more apps to be ready for the latest server OC models. There is a lag.
There seems to be constant unrest with the management application platform, CME, SCI, Genesys administrator, GAX, then GAX plugins, then a move away from plugins. We would like one stable management platform that encompasses ALL aspects of management within the contact center.
Real-time reporting deficiencies with Genesys pulse web. this application cannot live up to CCPulse with respect to flexibility of views. Pulse web was a plugin now it's not a plugin any longer. constant movement, we finally get pulse web plugin onto production, 6 months later these something supposedly better.
Add additional demographic sorting options for the audience to better meet the needs of B2B users - for example include industry type, functional area, etc.
Sometimes there are restrictions around types of research that can be used for moderated user-testing with our own users.
For tests on relatively small areas of a website or app, the AI analysis seems rather overblown, like it's trying too hard to come up with something insightful when the test is actually about something quite small (e.g. structure of a mobile app menu).
It's difficult to invite our own users to unmoderated user-testing because they wouldn't know how the UserTesting interface works - this is particularly an issue for mobile research.
Genesys Engage is instrumental in us meeting our service obligations to our customers. Engage enables our organization to deliver interactions to the right staff and helps us minimize service and coverage gaps through historical and real-time reporting. Additionally, we feel that only Genesys Engage can meet and exceed our business needs and requirements.
I'm very happy with my experience of the product and the level of service and learning resources they provide. If the service becomes more expensive than it currently is then we might not be able to justify additional cost - but this is theoretical. I would recommend UserTesting and would ideally renew our contract.
Overall, from a customer perspective and also an agent perspective, it is very easy to use Genesys Engage's platform. The Agent Desktop and Genesys WDE are good. Usability is high and I would consider it an easy to use product and easy to adopt from this perspective.
Due to its simplicity and design it is really easy to navigate. You can clearly understand which sections you have completed and which are still left to be done. It is also really easy to change ordering of content etc, which I have found hasn’t been an option in other tools which means it is a really lengthy task of rewriting all of the tasks or questions to get them in the correct order that is desired.
It's very good, I have used other tools in the past and this is by far the most intuitive and user friendly. Testament to this is the ease with which other non researchers who have been onboarded to the tool with our additional seat have found it easy to use
There are occasional failures, but distributed and High Availability features work well when architected, installed, and configured properly. Thoroughly reading and understanding system documentation is a must.
Never being disappointed in my 11 plus years of utilizing the various aspects of the system. No matter what we throw at it, the systems continue to perform as expected.
There's definitely room for improvement. I would have love to see the chat functionality work more frequently. The level of expertise has diminished over the years. I understand that this in part has to do with the number of new products that has been introduced, but should not be an excuse for the lack of readiness.
I have contacted UserTesting's customer service online, by email, or by phone a few times, and each time, I have encountered the same professionalism and expertise. Even in person during a work event, they were there, and it was the same experience.
Good training, but on limited locations. You can almost only follow trainings in europ in the UK and in Germany. Uk location is relatively difficult to get to and on a exppensive location. The content of the training is good, supplied training material is okay, but sometimes a bit outdated. When you follow a training it is most likely because of a recent purchase which is uasually the latest version.
Interesting webinars on relevant topic are being provided regularly. Th e webinars a often provided by Genesys and hosted by a very experienced product owner. In many occasions a customer is invited to share his / her experiences and best practices. Webinars can be watched at a later time for your convenience.
It was a death march. We finally learned enough about the product to know that our vendor knew nothing and had done it wrong. We hired voice engineers and took over the project. We should have fired our vendor much earlier
From a technical perspective, the implementation was extremely smooth. Most of the change management / implementation hurdles were clearing use of the tool through our various security, legal, and information privacy teams. Once these concerns were addressed (UserTesting.com was very helpful in providing all the needed documentation), the implementation process was very simple and we were able to get going right away.
For a similar contact center structure, I find Genesys products are faster to produce outcomes, and fast to respond (loading, changing screens...). However, in terms of user interface, I do prefer the way NICE did things there. Coming from an agent background, I find that the NICE agent interface is more visually appealing and offers more flexibility (parameters for agent exceptions).
UsabilityHub provides very fast, short responses to specific questions about a static image of a website. This is useful for checking what is most prominent on a page, what they would click on, what they see/read within the first 5 seconds of landing etc. WhatUsersDo is a broader tool, that records the screen and audio as a user navigates the website. You can set tasks and ask questions, but it much more about the user journey experience and their opinion, rather than testing a particular feature. Feedback also takes a bit longer. Hotjar is a combination of both, its a screen recording which helps you to see where users click and move to, but there is no audio or text feedback, just heatmaps/click maps for watching user behaviour.
The quality of the participants: they usually have good feedback and act like "professional" users. Which is good when we want a few insights in a short amount of time. Also, the interface is good. I miss having more features, like a good transcription tool like we have in Condens
The Interactive Intelligence SIP based contact center platform has broken through the barriers of "board based" technology to processor based limits on scalability. This means their CIC premise or cloud platform can be engineered to support agent counts into the thousands.
Utilizing Genesys Contact Center Portfolio has added increased employee efficiency, providing better availability to customer demands which in turn has increased customer satisfaction.
Utilizing Genesys Contact Center Portfolio has added increased management efficiency, automating resource planning and scheduling and providing management more time to focus on other important tasks.
