Grasshopper: reviews and customer testimonials, is this the right business telephony solution for you?

Imagine you’re a sales or call center manager. You need to equip your team with simple, reliable, easy-to-deploy cloud telephony. Grasshopper seems like a serious option. To help you see clearly, we’ve sifted through the reviews published on Google, Trustpilot and Capterra. Here’s what users have to say, and what this means for your daily life.

 

Overall opinion

In the sample analyzed, feedback was mixed. A total of 30 reviews were studied, with 14 positive, 7 mixed and 9 negative. The most common positive points were the system’s reliability, ease of configuration and suitability for small businesses. Irritants included occasional bugs, perceived limitations of the platform, and several reports of hard-to-reach support, although other reviews cited the opposite.

“Grasshopper offers a reliable, easy-to-configure virtual service with good features tailored to small businesses.”

“The system works well but has occasional bugs that can disrupt the user experience.”

“Support is hard to reach and problems are not always resolved efficiently.”

“Customer support really listens and quickly helps solve problems.”

Operationally, this means that a small team can get up and running quickly and without friction. The risk to be anticipated lies rather in the management of technical incidents. In the event of a bug, some users report a slow resolution, others a rapid assistance. For a manager, this requires simple workaround procedures and rigorous ticket follow-up. For a growing team, the simplicity of onboarding works in Grasshopper’s favor, but the technical limitations reported by some users suggest that the service should be tested on a pilot basis before being rolled out on a wider scale.

 

Pricing & evolution

The reviews don’t give any details on price structures, volume discounts or cancellation fees. Only one point clearly emerges: the perception of a reasonable price for what the platform provides, while calling for improvements.

“The price is reasonable, but some improvements are needed on the platform.”

In concrete terms, if you need to reduce or increase the number of users along the way, there’s no notice of how Grasshopper handles these movements, or if there are any ancillary costs. There’s no mention of paid add-ons, activation fees, or the difference between monthly and annual.

For comparison, Kavkom publicly displays its price levels in euros, without commitment, with an annual discount of 20 percent. For example, cloud telephony starts at €10 per user per month for incoming calls only, and unlimited FR-US-CA packages are available at €30 monthly per user, or €24 annually. Flexibility is emphasized at Kavkom, with prorated billing and the ability to quickly adjust licenses. Grasshopper’s reviews neither confirm nor deny this level of flexibility. If your model frequently changes its workforce, this point needs to be clarified before making a decision.

 

VoIP features

Users praise the efficient, easy-to-configure virtual phone system, well-suited to smaller structures. Feedback emphasizes basic usability, general stability, and a quick learning curve. On the other hand, reviews point to technical bugs and platform limitations, without going into functional details.

“Efficient and easy-to-use virtual phone system.”

“Some functional limitations, improvements needed.”

For a manager, this means simple deployment for standard uses. Day-to-day productivity is fine if the process remains simple, and if your needs concern inbound calls, basic transfers and number management. On the other hand, if your team needs advanced tools such as a predictive dialer, fine tracking of recordings, or advanced call paths, nothing in the reviews confirms that Grasshopper covers these needs to the level expected.

In comparison, Kavkom focuses on a complete cloud switchboard, recordings, real-time monitoring, and above all a predictive dialer for outbound call campaigns. For a sales team or call center, these bricks remove many operational constraints. Grasshopper reviews are silent on these features, leaving an area of uncertainty if your priority is large-scale outbound.

 

VoIP security

The reviews analyzed do not discuss security. No feedback on encryption, MFA, SSO or data protection incidents. Criticism focuses on technical bugs and, occasionally, perceived slowness of support, but not on security flaws.

“Bug resolution issues and slow or unavailable support.”

This silence doesn’t mean that the solution is weak or strong on this aspect, only that users aren’t talking about it. If your sector is sensitive to compliance, plan a detailed exchange with the publisher and an end-to-end test. On the Kavkom side, public communication emphasizes security and RGPD compliance, but here we’re left with Grasshopper’s user reviews, which don’t touch on the subject.

 

Steering & KPIs

None of the reviews mention dashboards, real time, exports or an API. User feedback focuses on day-to-day use and support, not on data and management.

“Platform limitations, improvements needed.”

For a sales or operations department, this is an angle to check if you need to track productivity, waiting time, off-hook rates, or export statistics. In comparison, Kavkom offers dashboards, live listening and CSV exports. Reviews of Grasshopper do not confirm whether or not equivalent functionalities exist.

 

Phone number availability

The reviews do not mention countries covered, number types or porting. We don’t know if users encounter coverage gaps or if city-by-city selection is possible. Again, this is a point to be clarified with the publisher if you are deploying to several geographical areas.

“Suitable for small structures.”

For location, Kavkom offers geographic numbers in over 50 countries and multi-device support. This information helps you to plan ahead, but says nothing about Grasshopper, since the reviews don’t cover this subject. If you have a multi-country plan, check in advance the local presence required, portability and activation times.

 

Support & responsiveness

This is the most contrasting point. Some users describe support as difficult to reach, with ineffective resolution. Others describe a highly responsive and attentive support team, capable of resolving problems quickly. Both realities coexist in recent reviews.

“Support is hard to reach and problems are not always resolved efficiently.”

“Customer support really listens and quickly helps solve problems.”

In practice, the risk to be managed is the recovery time in the event of an incident. An outage on a Monday morning creates an immediate loss of earnings if the response is delayed. If your business depends on high availability, plan for rerouting scenarios and a contractual escalation point. As for onboarding, positive feedback on the ease of installation limits the initial effort, which is a good sign for small teams.

In comparison, Kavkom offers human, French-speaking support, available by phone, email and ticket, with configuration assistance. This can reduce start-up friction. Opinions on Grasshopper, on the other hand, remain divided, which calls for testing support on a concrete case during the trial.

 

Third-party integrations

The reviews don’t mention any specific integrations, nor the depth of integration with a CRM, nor the presence of an API. There are no examples of contact sheet pop-ups, auto call logs or plan conditions.

“Platform can be improved, improvements desired.”

If CRM integration is central to your business, you’ll need to ask the sales rep specific questions, or carry out a POC with your environment. For comparison, Kavkom offers native integrations with Zoho, Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive and Zendesk, plus an open API. Grasshopper reviews do not validate an equivalent scope. The practical consequence if you don’t validate this point in advance: double entry, loss of history, and reduced productivity on the sales or support side.