If you’re looking for alternatives to RingCentral for enterprise telephony that’s truly adapted to your sales teams or in-house call centers, this comparison is for you. This top 8 list analyzes solutions designed for real-world use, day-to-day teams and operational constraints, not for ticking technical boxes. The aim is simple: to help you identify the alternative that best fits your context and your B2B needs.
No credit card
No obligation
Custom demo
The solutions below were compared on the basis of their suitability for real-life business telephony use, team productivity and operational flexibility.
| 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, call recording, CRM integration | 100% cloud solution, no commitment, simple logic per user and usage | 8,5 |
| RingCentral | SMEs and SMBs looking for a unified communications suite | VoIP telephony, advanced routing, analytics, business integrations | Subscription per user with options and modules | 8,0 |
| Mitel | SMBs and large accounts with IT and multisite constraints | Unified communications, supervision, advanced customization | Hybrid model with licenses and à la carte options | 7,5 |
| Twilio | Technical teams and customized projects | Voice and SMS APIs, automation, scalability | Pay-per-use billing, modular technical logic | 7,0 |
| Plivo | Developers and volume-oriented platforms | Call and SMS APIs, fine-grained flow control | Pay-per-use, traffic-oriented model | 6,8 |
| Vonage | Companies looking for telephony and omnichannel | Cloud telephony, contact center, CRM integrations | Subscriptions per user with options | 7,2 |
| Dialpad | AI-aware sales and support teams | Real-time transcription, intelligent routing, analytics | Subscription per user, AI options according to plan | 7,6 |
Kavkom is aimed at companies looking for enterprise telephony designed for real-life use by sales teams and internal call centers, with simple implementation, clear logic and flexibility consistent with operational constraints.
Kavkom is ideal for companies that want business telephonywithout technical complexity. Typically, sales teams or in-house call centers need to call, supervise and manage day-to-day activity.
Case in point. A sales team making a steady stream of outbound calls and needing to monitor performance in real time. Kavkom also stands out for its human, French-speaking, responsive supportwithout chatbots or automated paths.
Features are designed for action in the field, not for technical demonstration.
The logic is simple and straightforward. Solution 100% cloudNo hardware, no long-term commitment. Costs evolve with usage and team size, with no essential modules to add to get started.
Organizations looking for a complete collaboration platform (videoconferencing, chat, extended collaborative tools) will have to look elsewhere: Kavkom specializes in performance-oriented corporate telephony.
8.5 out of 10
Kavkom responds directly to the key criteria in the table. Real usage, team productivity, clear supervision and contractual flexibility. It’s this targeted positioning that makes Kavkom the perfect choice for sales teams and in-house call centers.
Aircall is aimed at growing SMEs and ETIs, with sales or support teams who want a solution that is quick to deploy and well integrated with their existing tools.
Per-user model, often with annual commitment. Legibility is good, but some advanced functions require higher-level plans.
The solution becomes more expensive as the team grows. Contractual flexibility is more limited for very dynamic teams.
7.8 out of 10
Ringover is ideal for sales and support teams who want to centralize multiple communication channels in a single interface, with a strong business integration logic.
Subscription per user, with functional tiers. The model is easy to read, but some bricks are conditional on the chosen plan.
Functional richness can exceed the needs of small, call-oriented teams. Omnichannel logic is not always necessary in a purely telephone context.
7.7 out of 10
Dialpad is aimed at sales and support teams looking for a cloud solution with strong artificial intelligence features, particularly for conversation analysis.
Subscription per user with multiple levels. Advanced AI features often require higher plans.
The highly AI-oriented approach can be overkill for teams who are above all looking for efficiency and operational simplicity.
7.6 out of 10
Talkdesk is aimed primarily at structured contact centers and medium to large-sized organizations with advanced management needs.
Premium positioning, by user, with well-segmented plans. The investment is justified above all for high volumes.
Complexity and cost can hold back smaller sales teams or organizations looking for a fast, lightweight solution.
7.4 out of 10
Five9 is designed for large in-house call centers, with high volumes and demanding supervision and automation requirements.
Business-oriented model, often with commitment. The pricing logic is adapted to mature structures, less so to agile teams.
Not suitable for SMEs or sales teams looking for simplicity and rapid implementation.
7.3 out of 10
CloudTalk is ideal for SMEs and support or sales teams working internationally, who want a solution that’s easy to deploy.
Subscription per user with gradual upgrading. Clear structure for growing teams.
Advanced control functions remain more limited than on complex call center-oriented platforms.
7.2 out of 10
Mitel is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses and large accounts, with a high level of IT involvement and environments that are sometimes hybrid or multi-site.
More complex model, with licenses, options and sometimes hybrid infrastructure. Contractual flexibility is highly project-dependent.
Set-up and management can be cumbersome for sales teams looking for speed and ease of use.
7.1 out of 10
A sales team needs tools that focus on outbound calls and performance monitoring.
An in-house call center needs supervision and control.
Customer support focuses on management and traceability.
Low volumes are manageable with simple tools. High volume requires automation, queuing and optimization logic. The cost structure is strongly influenced by this parameter.
Some teams just need recordings. Others need to monitor in real time, support and adjust practices on a daily basis. These are two very different uses.
The budget constraints must remain clear.
A simple model makes projection easier. Multiple options can quickly complicate the decision. The key question is how costs will evolve with growth.
Long or short commitment, ease of adding or removing users, simplicity of activating or deactivating the solution according to the company’s actual activity.
These two solutions do not respond to the same logic of use. The choice depends above all on the role telephony plays in your day-to-day operations.
Is your telephony a simple tool or a daily work lever?
If it’s mainly used to contact customers and partners, a general-purpose suite may suffice.
If it structures sales activity or the work of an in-house call center, a solution designed for action in the field becomes more coherent.
Do you need to manage calls and teams in real time?
Occasional follow-up may be appropriate for some organizations.
Continuous management, with immediate visibility, is more suited to teams with objectives.
Are you looking for a turnkey solution or a more IT-oriented environment?
Some companies are comfortable with extensive parameterization.
Others prefer an operational tool that teams can use quickly.
Is contractual flexibility important to your business?
When staff numbers and call volumes change, the ability to adjust without friction becomes a decisive criterion.
Do your teams work under volume or performance pressure?
In this context, telephony is no longer a medium, but a production tool in its own right.
In practice, the right choice depends on actual use. Organizations looking for corporate telephony that is directly geared to action, control and flexibility often find more consistency with KavkomRingCentral is more in line with a broader unified communications approach.
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 RingCentral alternative is best suited to B2B companies?
There is no universal answer. The right choice depends above all on actual use, the type of team and the role telephony plays in day-to-day activity. An organization focused on global communications will not have the same expectations as a team focused on calls and operational management.
Which alternatives are best suited to sales teams?
Sales teams need telephony designed for outgoing calls, activity monitoring and supervision. The most coherent solutions are those that transform the call into a daily work tool, with visibility on performance and ease of use for field teams.
Are these alternatives suitable for call centers?
Yes, but not all in the same way. An in-house call center needs control, real-time monitoring and flow structuring. Some solutions are designed for high volumes and teams managed on a daily basis, others for more occasional or support-oriented use.
Are there more flexible alternatives to RingCentral in terms of commitment?
Some solutions favor rigid models, while others focus on flexibility. For companies with fast-moving businesses, the ability to adjust users and usage without strong constraints can become a decisive criterion in the choice.
How do you compare the real costs of these alternatives?
We need to look beyond the initial plan. The business model, the options required for actual use, and how these will evolve with growth all play a key role. A solution may seem simple at the outset, then become more complex or less legible as needs grow.
