If you’re looking for the Top 7 alternatives to Grasshopper for enterprise telephony that’s truly tailored to your sales teams or your in-house call centers, you’ve come to the right place. This comparison is not limited to technical data sheets; it puts the solutions face to face according to their real day-to-day use, where teams actually call, supervise and organize themselves. The aim is simple: to help you understand the differences that really matter, so you can make a B2B choice that’s consistent with your context.
No credit card
No obligation
Custom demo
The solutions below have been 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 | Predictive dialer, real-time supervision, CRM integration, call reporting | Flexible, no-commitment subscription, prorated logic | 8,5 |
| RingCentral | Structured companies with IT needs and extended collaboration | Cloud telephony, advanced IVR, contact center, analytics | Subscription per user, options and additional modules | 7,5 |
| Mitel | Historic organizations with complex telecom environments | Enterprise telephony, call routing, advanced administration | More rigid model, infrastructure and license costs | 6,5 |
| Twilio | Technical teams and customized API projects | Voice APIs, SMS, automations, customized scenarios | Pay-per-use billing, variable costs according to volume | 6 |
| Plivo | Developers looking for a programmable voice base | Telephony API, SMS, call flow control | Pay-per-use, technical model | 5,5 |
| Vonage | SMBs looking for a versatile VoIP solution | Cloud telephony, contact center, CRM integrations | Subscription per user, options according to usage | 7 |
| Dialpad | Teams focused on collaboration and AI call analysis | Cloud telephony, AI transcription, supervision, integrations | Subscription per user, rapid upgrade | 7 |
Kavkom is designed for teams who want business telephony designed for real-life use, with simple implementation, tools adapted to day-to-day business and contractual flexibility in line with field constraints, without unnecessary complexity.
Kavkom is ideal for sales teams and in-house call centers who need business telephony that’s simple to deploy and really used on a daily basis. Typically, a sales team that calls a lot, supervises its performance and works with an existing CRM, without wanting to manage technical complexity.
Kavkom focuses on the key features key functionalities required for standard commercial usewith no essential modules to add to get you started.
Kavkom also stands out for its responsive, French-speaking human supportwithout chatbots or automated paths.
The model is non-bindingwith pro rata billing. Costs remain transparent and evolve simply with the size of the team, with no tunnel effect linked to essential options.
Organizations looking for a complete collaboration platform (videoconferencing, chat, extended collaborative tools) will have to look elsewhere: Kavkom specializes in performance-oriented corporate telephony.
Kavkom ticks off the central criteria of the table for real field use: 100% cloud enterprise telephony without hardwaretools designed for sales teams and in-house call centers, and contractual flexibility adapted to business constraints.
Rating: 8.5 / 10
RingCentral is primarily aimed at structured companies with IT teams and extensive communication and collaboration needs. For example, a multi-site organization that wants to centralize voice, meetings and messaging.
These functions cover a wide range of cases, but often require some configuration.
Pricing is based on a subscription per userwith additional modules depending on use. Legibility may decrease as needs increase.
For sales teams focused on outbound calls and simple supervision, the solution can seem cumbersome and oversized.
Score : 7.5 / 10
Mitel has historically been used by organizations already equipped complex telecom environments, often with strong internal constraints or long-standing telephony practices.
Usage is more oriented towards infrastructure than commercial productivity.
The model is generally more rigidwith costs linked to licenses and the existing technical environment.
The complexity of implementation and evolution can slow down sales teams looking for speed and agility.
Rating: 6.5 / 10
Twilio mainly targets technical teams or companies wishing to build customized call paths via API. A good example is a startup with in-house developers.
It’s all about development and configuration.
Billing is per usewith variable costs depending on volumes and scenarios.
Without a technical team, the tool is directly usable by operational for operational sales teams.
Score : 6 / 10
Plivo is also aimed at technical profiles looking for a programmable basis for voice, often in specific projects or integrated into business applications.
The focus is on construction, not turnkey operations.
The model is consumption-basedwhich offers flexibility but requires precise monitoring of usage.
Not suitable for sales teams who want a ready-to-use solution with no technical dependency.
Rating: 5.5 / 10
Vonage is suitable for SMB looking for a relatively versatile VoIP solution, with mixed needs between sales and support.
This package covers all the classic uses.
The logic is based on a subscription per userwith options depending on the features activated.
Ramping up can lead to complexity complexity for fast-growing for fast-growing teams.
Score : 7 / 10
Dialpad targets teams focused on collaboration and exchange analysis, particularly in support or extended customer relations contexts.
AI brings value on analysis, more than on intensive outbound calling.
The model is based on a subscription per userwith rapid upgrading for advanced features.
For sales teams focused on pure productivity and call volume, some functions may seem secondary.
Score : 7 / 10
Start by identifying who actually uses the solution on a daily basis.
The level of activity strongly changes needs.
Ask yourself whether you should simply be making calls or or manage a team.
Beyond the initial budget, look at the costs over time.
Finally, assess your need for flexibility.
These two solutions do not meet the same expectations, and the right choice depends above all on how your telephony is used on a daily basis by your teams.
Is your telephony a simple communication tool or a daily operational lever?
If calls are part of the core business, with volume targets volume targets or performance, a solution designed for operational use makes perfect sense. Grasshopper is best suited to basic usewhere call organization remains simple.
Do you need to manage calls and teams in real time?
As soon as you need to monitor activity, support employees or adjust workloads as the day progresses, supervision tools become central. Without this need, a lighter solution may suffice.
Are you looking for a turnkey solution, or are you comfortable with a simpler, more limited environment?
Some teams want to go fast, without asking themselves technical questions, while others accept a more restricted framework as long as the essentials are covered.
Is contractual flexibility important to your business?
If your workforce or call volumes change frequently, the ability to easily adjust the solution becomes a real criterion of comfort and control.
Do your teams work under pressure with clear objectives?
In a sales or in-house call center context, the tool needs to keep pace with the pace and reality of the field, not just enable calls to be made.
In practice, the choice between Kavkom and Grasshopper depends above all on your operational requirements and the place telephony occupies in your organization. The more your teams are structured by usage, the more logical a solution aligned with these constraints becomes.
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 Grasshopper alternative is best suited to B2B companies?
It all depends on the actual use of telephony within the organization. A B2B company that uses the telephone as a one-off tool has different needs to a structure where calling is at the heart of the business. The choice therefore depends on the type of team, the volume of calls and the expected level of management.
Which alternatives are best suited to sales teams?
Sales teams need tools that focus on outbound calls, activity monitoring and supervision. Some solutions are designed to structure the pace of work and support performance, while Grasshopper is more suited to simple uses. Kavkom, for example, is ideal for teams who call a lot and monitor their results on a daily basis.
Are these alternatives suitable for call centers?
Yes, but not all in the same way. An in-house call center requires management, supervision and a real-time view of activity, which goes beyond the scope of a simple call tool. The most suitable solutions are those designed for organized in-house teams, not for occasional support.
Are there any commitment-free alternatives to Grasshopper?
Some solutions offer more flexible models than Grasshopper. The fact that there is no commitment means that the tool can be adjusted to changes in headcount or call volume. This criterion is often decisive for growing companies or those with fluctuating activity.
How do you compare the real costs of Grasshopper alternatives?
You have to look at the business model as a whole. Some solutions seem simple at the outset, but become more complex as options are added or activity increases. Comparing actual costs is above all a matter of analyzing the legibility of the model and its evolution over time, according to actual usage.
