If you’re looking for the Top 6 alternatives to Evoice for enterprise telephony that’s truly adapted to your day-to-day business, this comparison is for you. It’s aimed at sales teams and in-house call centers who want to compare solutions based on real-life usage, not just on promises or data sheets. The aim is simple: to help you make a B2B choice that’s consistent with your context and operational priorities.
No credit card
No obligation
Custom demo
The solutions below were compared on the basis of their suitability for real business telephony applications, and the productivity of sales teams and in-house call centers.
| Solution | Best for | Key features | Price positioning | Score out of 10 |
| Kavkom | Performance-oriented sales teams and in-house call centers | Dialer, real-time supervision, CRM integration, cloud telephony | No commitment, pro rata billing, simple logic | 8.8 |
| Grasshopper | Self-employed and mobile VSEs | Business number, simple IVR, call routing | Monthly fee per user, simple model | 6.6 |
| RingCentral | Structured companies with advanced IT needs | Cloud PBX, contact center, advanced analytics | Subscription per user, tiered options | 7.9 |
| Ooma | VSEs and SMEs looking for a versatile solution | Virtual switchboard, call analytics, CRM integrations | Per-user subscription, modular options | 7.2 |
| Google Voice | Small teams already on Google Workspace | Unified calls and SMS, voice transcription, mobility | Subscription per user, integrated into Workspace | 6.8 |
| Line2 | Freelancers and microteams | Secondary number, SMS, basic routing | Subscription per number, entry-level | 6.4 |
Kavkom is designed for teams who expect enterprise cloud telephonytelephony, designed for real-life use, with simple implementation and flexibility in line with day-to-day business challenges.
Kavkom is relevant for sales teams and in-house call centers who use the telephone as a daily work tool. Typically, a sales or lead qualification team that needs to call in volume, monitor activity in real time and keep a clear view of performance, without depending on an IT team.
The approach is focused on the operational, not on the accumulation of modules.
These functions correspond to standard commercial use, where the phone is used to produce measurable results.
The model is easy to read and scalable.
No commitmentwith pro rata billingThis makes it easy to adjust the number of users or usage according to activity, without contractual rigidity. Kavkom also stands out for its human, French-speaking, responsive supportwithout chatbots or automated paths.
Organizations looking for a complete collaboration platform (videoconferencing, chat, extended collaborative tools) will have to look elsewhere: Kavkom specializes in performance-oriented corporate telephony.
8.8 / 10
Kavkom stands out for its clear alignment with the real needs the real needs of sales teams and in-house call centerswhere simplicity of use, supervision and contractual flexibility take precedence over complex functional layers.
Grasshopper is ideal for freelancersThis is the case for freelancers and very small teams who want a business number separate from their personal use. For example, a single consultant or a micro-structure who wants to answer customer calls from their mobile.
The tool covers the basics of simple professional telephony.
These functions are sufficient for individual activity, but remain limited for team use.
The model is based on monthly packages per userThese are easy to understand, but less flexible as the team grows or usage becomes more complex.
Grasshopper shows its limitations when it comes to supervise a teamIt’s not designed for organized sales teams. It’s not designed for organized sales teams.
6.6 / 10
RingCentral is aimed at structured companiesThese are often IT departments looking for a broad communications platform. A mid-sized group or a large company will find a robust framework.
The solution goes far beyond telephony.
This makes sense for multi-service organizations, but less so for a sales team focused on the call.
Pricing is organized by functional levelswith per-user subscriptions. The move upmarket is gradual, but can become complex to read.
For sales teams in the field, the whole package can seem cumbersome to configure and maintain, especially if not all the bricks are used.
7.9 / 10
Ooma targets VSEs and SMEs who want versatile business telephony without excessive complexity. For example, a small service company with a few sales representatives and thin client support.
The solution covers a fairly broad spectrum.
This is enough to structure a small team, without going into very intensive use.
The per-user model is relatively simplewith options to suit your needs. Legibility remains good as long as the organization remains moderate in size.
As soon as call volumes rise sharply or supervision becomes critical, capacities can appear limited when compared with more specialized solutions.
7.2 / 10
Google Voice is ideal for small teams already highly dependent on Google Workspace. For example, a start-up in its early stages of growth, or a distributed team that favors mobility.
The tool focuses on simplicity.
Comfortable to use for simple needs, with no need for advanced piloting.
Pricing per user is clear and predictableespecially in a Google environment already in place.
For structured sales teams or in-house call centers, the absence of advanced advanced supervision and dedicated productivity tools quickly becomes an obstacle.
6.8 / 10
Line2 is suitable for freelancers and micro-teams who want a second business number that can be used on both mobile and PC, without complex configuration.
Functionality remains deliberately basic.
This meets an individual need rather than a team logic.
The model by number is availablewith an entry-level model that’s easy to switch on and off.
Line2 is not designed to structure a collective commercial activity. As soon as you need to monitor performance or coordinate several users, the solution reaches its limits.
6,4/10
Start by identifying who actually uses the solution on a daily basis.
Not all solutions cover these uses with the same level of depth.
Volume changes everything.
The higher the volume, the greater the impact on productivityautomation and team organization becomes critical.
Ask yourself the question of piloting.
The difference between simple use and managerial use is often decisive.
Look beyond the apparent cost.
A solution may seem simple at first, but become complex to manage over time.
Finally, assess your need for agility.
Flexibility is often key in changing business contexts.
These two solutions do not meet the same expectations. The choice depends above all on the place telephony occupies in your organization and the way your teams use it on a daily basis.
Is your telephony a simple communication tool or an operational lever?
If the telephone is mainly used to be reachable, a simple solution may suffice. As soon as it becomes a central work tool, with objectives and follow-up, the approach needs to be more structured.
Do you need to manage calls and teams in real time?
Some organizations are content with individual use. Others need monitor activitysupport teams and maintain a clear vision of performance, day after day.
Are you looking for a turnkey solution or are you comfortable with a more technical environment?
Depending on your situation, you may prefer a tool that’s ready to use straight away, or one that requires more configuration and management.
Is contractual flexibility important to your business?
When business evolves, the ability to quickly adjust to users and uses becomes a concrete decision criterion.
Do your teams work under pressure with volume or performance targets?
The greater the operational pressure, the greater the difference between the tool and the field on a daily basis.
In practice, the right choice always depends on theactual usenot the name of the solution. For sales teams or in-house call centers that use the telephone as a performance tool, an approach aligned with these constraints naturally becomes more coherent.
Find out why over 8,000 companies work with Kavkom for their corporate telephony.
4.7 on Capterra
With Kavkom, I was able to easily resolve the issue of communication costs to my regular customers. My agents, too, were no longer restricted in their mobility, because even when on the move, communications are managed.
Ben Cauchois
VP Sales & Operations @ SEIZA
We’ve increased our targets by 10% thanks to the information we’ve gained from call identification and analysis provided by Kavkom’s telephony solution.
Dov Dahan
CEO @ Formideo
We evaluated several service providers, and Kavkom emerged as the only option that allowed us to tailor our customer service requirements to our unique business practices.
Pierre Roche
Managing Partner
at Groupe OREL
The integration of Kavkom’s virtual number service with voicemail has considerably facilitated our process of collecting visitor testimonials. We have been able to gather valuable feedback that helps us to continually improve our services.
Hélène Lafont-Couturier
Visitor Relations Manager
Musée des Confluences
Any other questions?
Consult our Online Help or Contact us
Which Evoice alternative is best suited to B2B companies?
There is no universal answer. The right choice depends on team typeSome solutions are suitable for simple use, while others are designed for structured business telephony. Some solutions are suitable for simple use, while others are designed for structured corporate telephony. The important thing is to align the tool with actual usage.
Which alternatives are best suited to sales teams?
Sales teams need a telephone as an operational lever operational leveragenot just as a means of contact. The right solutions offer activity monitoring, supervision and tools to support outbound calls. Without these, productivity and managerial visibility remain limited.
Are these alternatives suitable for call centers?
Yes, but only if we’re talking about in-house call centersno outsourced services. The challenge is to manage flows, listen to and support teams. Some solutions cover these needs, while others remain too basic for intensive use.
Are there any commitment-free alternatives to Evoice?
Yes, several solutions offer a more flexible logic flexibleThis flexibility is particularly useful for growing companies or those with variable volumes. This flexibility is particularly useful for growing companies or those with variable volumes. The absence of any long-term commitment reduces the risk involved in making the right choice.
How can I compare the real costs of Evoice alternatives?
We need to look at the overall business modelNot just the initial subscription. The options required, the evolution with call volumes and the growth of teams can strongly influence the cost over time. A solution that’s easy to understand at the outset can become complex as usage evolves.
