Webex Reviews

Webex is my main mode of communication for meetings.

Webex is user-friendly.

Cisco could maybe make Webex more integrated and compatible with other platforms.

I've been using Webex for quite a long time. It has been several years now. 

I rate Webex seven out of 10. I would recommend it to others.

I am using Webex for virtual meetings.

I have been using Webex for approximately two years.

The solution at times is not stable.

The scalability is not that good. If we small group meeting the solution is good, but if there is a large group of people to join the meeting then the network seems unstable.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution which consists of managers and officers.

I have previously used Zoom and Microsoft Teams. We switched to Webex because they had some local support here in Hong Kong.

The installation of Webex is simple. You only need to click an executable file to run it. it is very easy.

We did the installation of the solution.

We have one engineer that supports this solution.

We have received a return on investment. The solution has been useful for our organization.

There is a subscription needed to use this solution and we pay approximately $5,000 per year.

I would recommend this solution for small group meetings.

I rate Webex a seven out of ten.

My primary use case of Webex is for virtual meetings. 

It's a nice tool for virtual meetings and I'm satisfied with its performance. 

This service could be improved by implementing integration with Microsoft platforms. If you are on a call with Webex, you can get a call from Teams or Skype for Business without receiving any indication. 

I have used this solution a couple of times, mostly when I get a conference call invitation from other companies that use Webex. 

Installation was straightforward. From a call invitation, you receive a link and can install it directly from the web. 

I implemented myself. You don't need a technical team for deployment or maintenance. 

I have also used Zoom, Skype for Business, and Teams. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. It is a nice tool, but I rarely use it because I only hold meetings over Webex when another company initiates the conference call with this software. 

WebEx Integration to Outlook helps our users to schedule audio conference meetings with a push of a button. It is easy to use. This product enables scheduling of the audio bridge with random conference codes.

I don’t have an example to share. This is basically a cost avoidance solution at this time. In the future it may change the way the organization functions which we support, as soon as they drive more adoption of video and web collaboration available with CWMS.

CWMS on-premises solution does not integrate either with CMR nor with Jabber as of yet. There is no video integration with other Cisco endpoints such as DX80, DX650, or the new Cisco IP Phones 8845 or 8865 video phones. These are the areas where it could improve.

I have used this solution for more than 18 months.

There is an issue with MR2 that was fixed with a special hot fix or MR3. If you host or join an audio bridge only by phone, the meeting never ends. However, after reaching two concurrent meetings, you are not able to start a new meeting.

The CWMS large deployment is limited to 2,000 concurrent participants. There is no way to increase this limit by using the same website. A new website name and additional resources are required in order to expand; this is not easy to support.

I would give the technical support a 8/10 rating.

They started using MeetingPlace and followed the path to upgrade to WebEx on-premises as Cisco acquired MeetingPlace.

The setup was quite straightforward.

It all depends on what your needs are. Employ this solution for only the US audio conference when you already have Cisco Workspace Licensing, then it makes sense. I don’t know what TCO would be if you need this for the international audio conference and if you don’t have the Cisco IP telephone or if you are using the Cisco user licensing.

We did not evaluate other options.

Take into consideration your user needs, what user experience you want to deliver, and of course how this solution will play with your existing unified or non-communications ecosystem.

I like Webex because it is easy to work with.

In terms of improvement, every time I want to join a meeting on the web, I have to download an extension or the desktop app. It would be better if I could just join meetings directly on the web without extra downloads and steps. Simplifying this process would make things more straightforward and convenient for users like me.

I have been working with Webex for almost four years.

I would rate the scalability as a ten out of ten. It is most suitable for small to medium businesses.

I have used Microsoft Teams along with other solutions like Webex, and in comparison, Teams stands out for its seamless integration with Office 365. The compatibility with business needs makes Teams a preferred choice. While both Teams and Webex serve their purposes, the ease of use and integration with Microsoft's suite of tools make Teams a more convenient option for me.

The initial setup was not overly difficult, but it was time-consuming.

For those considering using Webex, my advice would be to explore automation options, especially if there is an outside team involved. Automating certain tasks can streamline processes and make using Webex more efficient. Overall, I would rate Webex as an eight out of ten.

I use Webex for virtual meetings.

Webex could improve the performance.

I have been using Webex for approximately one year.

Webex could be more stable.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

We have not contacted technical support.

I have used Skype for Business previously.

The implmentation of Webex is simple. It does not a lot of time.

We no longer use Webex because we found Microsoft Teams to be more stable.

I rate Webex a six out of ten.

I use it for virtual meetings.

It is useful for me for having meetings with others and working well remotely.

It is very powerful and stable.

When I use it personally, not in my enterprise, there is a time limit of about 60 minutes. After one hour, the call gets cut off. This limit should be increased.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

Its stability is good.

It is 99% scalable. All employees in our company are using this solution.

I don't have any experience with their support.

It is easy.

I can set it up myself.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It is perfect for communicating.