Avencall

Name: Avencall
Brand: Avencall

Solution Open Source et Made in France de communications unifiées, collaboration et Call Center.

Est 2009|Valuation $6.6M|Raised $5.8M|18 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 2K|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 60|HQ Dardilly, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, FR

MarketsInteractive Voice Response (IVR)Voice & Video Calling (VoIP, UCaaS)

Published Oct 8, 2026

01Common complaints

- If procurement requires publicly audited security certifications - Organizations that require publicly available SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certificates should note that such certifications were not documented in the public materials reviewed. - If a fully managed, cloud-first, minimal-engineering solution is required - Organizations without VoIP engineering resources that do not want to rely on integrators or professional services may find a CCaaS/UCaaS provider better aligned to their needs. - If transparent, self-serve pricing is a strict requirement - The vendor does not publish clear self-serve pricing on the pages reviewed, which complicates direct cost comparisons. - If broad third-party review validation is required for procurement - Mainstream review coverage on platforms like G2 or TrustRadius was limited in this research run, which may reduce independently verifiable social proof compared with larger UCaaS brands. - Current limitations acknowledged by vendor or community - The vendor does not present a consolidated public "known issues" page; however, community forums contain troubleshooting reports and gaps (for example, call-center statistics completeness concerns). - Features on the roadmap - Public roadmap information was not consolidated in the materials reviewed; roadmap detail and timelines should be requested directly from the vendor. - Scale limitations - Publicly published scale testing (e.g., maximum concurrent calls/agents) was not found in the sources reviewed. - Security or compliance gaps - No public SOC 2 or ISO 27001 documentation was identified in the materials reviewed; buyers should obtain security documentation via direct vendor engagement and questionnaires. - API limitations or integration constraints - The vendor documents APIs and integrations, but independent verification of API maturity, rate limits, and connector maintenance was not located in the sources reviewed.

Deal disqualifiers

Organizations that require publicly documented SOC 2 / ISO 27001 certifications
Organizations seeking simple per-seat pricing without a sales engagement
Organizations that require a fully managed, turnkey cloud service without reliance on integrators or operator-grade telecom engineering

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

Public, independently verified churn reasons are not broadly documented in accessible review platforms.
The project fork and governance changes are cited in community discussions and independent reporting as potential reasons for organizations to select Wazo or other alternatives.

02Why they buy

- Differentiators supported by available evidence - Open-source licensing and interoperability are consistently emphasized in vendor materials and customer statements. - Deployment flexibility: the product can be deployed on-premises or in a cloud environment, which supports data residency and regulatory preferences when configured accordingly. - France/EU-oriented data residency and GDPR-related commitments are referenced in privacy materials and marketing language. - Areas where competitors have advantages - Mainstream cloud UCaaS/CCaaS vendors often provide a published trust center with compliance artifacts, larger app marketplaces, and more abundant third-party reviews and benchmarks.

Why customers chose this product over alternatives (evidence)

Case-study materials and vendor references emphasize:
- Open-source licensing and related integration flexibility
- Interoperability with existing information systems
- Softphone and mobility capabilities
- Ability to host on-premises to retain operational control instead of using a fully-managed SaaS provider

03Field reports

Important coverage limitation

XiVO/Avencall has limited presence on mainstream English-language review platforms based on the accessible searches performed in this research run. Some analyst and community references exist, but consolidated review data on platforms such as G2, TrustRadius, or Gartner Peer Insights was not located in the accessible results.

Direct quotes (vendor case studies / testimonials)

- Ville de Lille (public-sector reference) quote on vendor site: - "Nous avons eu de meilleures statistiques sur le taux de décroché, L'accompagnement fut simple car l'outil est très intuitif. XiVO facilite la mobilité." (Rémi Bougeard, Chef de projet Réseau & Télécom) - Groupe Yoni quote (vendor site): - "Dans mon précédent travail, j’utilisais déjà la solution XiVO, j’étais séduit et satisfait." (Arnaud WOROBEL, DSI & Sécurité) - SDIS 02 (emergency services) quote: - "Nous souhaitons déployer à terme tous nos centres de secours sur la solution XiVO." - Santévet quote: - "Nous avons choisi XiVO pour son caractère open source, son interopérabilité et sa capacité d’intégrer à notre système d’information." - Note: these are vendor-published quotes and are presented here for context. They have not been independently audited by this research run.

Direct quotes (community / forum)

A community comment from a VOIP discussion referenced that the maintainer of the original XiVO project left and a fork to Wazo occurred; this is an anecdotal statement and should be treated as community-sourced context rather than an authoritative history.

Common criticisms and complaints (from accessible community sources)

- Fragmentation and project history confusion: community discussions indicate changes in project hosting and the existence of a fork, which can create procurement confusion regarding which project or distribution to adopt. - Call-center reporting/statistics completeness: community forum threads indicate some users have experienced gaps or interpretation challenges with call-center statistics. - Protocol and interoperability configuration: some threads discuss PJSIP registration issues and differences in adoption timelines for SIP stacks, suggesting version- and configuration-dependent complexity for operators.

Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available)

Vendor materials cite qualitative outcomes such as improved answer rates and perceived ease of use, but detailed numeric metrics were not available in the excerpts captured in this research run.

Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase

These are not systematically documented in public review sources. Likely concerns include the absence of publicly documented security certifications, lack of transparent self-serve pricing, and the operational complexity of PBX/contact-center deployments when compared with fully managed CCaaS options.

Case Studies

- Vendor-published case studies (examples) - The vendor publishes case studies referencing organizations such as Ville de Lille, SDIS 02, Groupama Rhône-Alpes Auvergne, and Santévet. These are presented as customer references on the vendor site. - Detailed customer success stories with metrics - Available landing-page excerpts and case summaries provide qualitative improvements (for example, improved answer rates) but limited hard numerical metrics in the captured materials. - Implementation details and time to value - Vendor documentation and FAQs outline migration approaches including full cutover or phased migration. Typical duration benchmarks were not provided in the public materials reviewed. - Challenges faced during adoption and how they were resolved - Independent documentation of implementation challenges and remediation steps is limited. Community forums contain operational troubleshooting examples (e.g., statistics and protocol configuration issues). - CRITICAL: Note when metrics are vendor-published without independent verification - Metrics and outcome statements cited from vendor materials are vendor-published and were not independently verified in this research run.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Likely best fit:
- Mid-sized to large organizations with internal IT/telecom capabilities or access to capable systems integrators
- Public sector, education, and emergency services organizations with requirements for on-premises deployment or EU/France data residency

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest

Public administration, contact centers, education and research, services, industry, emergency services, and healthcare are commonly referenced in vendor materials.

Roles and personas

Decision makers: CIO/IT Director, Head of Infrastructure/Network, Contact Center Operations Lead, Public Sector Procurement/IT Governance
End users: Knowledge workers using softphones and directories; contact center agents and supervisors using XiVO Agent/CC Manager interfaces

Pain points the product addresses

Replace legacy PBX/ISDN infrastructure during PSTN transitions
Reduce vendor lock-in by using open-source software
Integrate telephony with business applications (CRM/helpdesk)
Provide contact center supervision and reporting capabilities

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

Avencall is the vendor behind XiVO, an open-source, Debian/Asterisk-based unified communications (UC) and IP-PBX platform intended for enterprise telephony, softphones, directories, and contact-center operations.
The product family is presented as:
- XiVO UC (unified communications / enterprise telephony)
- XiVO CC (contact center)
- XiVO Connect (collaboration / team collaboration)

Target market and market positioning

Positioning is aimed at organizations seeking:
- Open-source software and interoperability
- A France/EU-focused data residency posture and tighter control of hosting (on-premises or cloud)
- UC and contact-center workflows for public sector, education, emergency services, healthcare, and mid-market/enterprise organizations

Get a comprehensive analysis of Avencall including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →