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)

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Avencall XiVO (vendor website) | Wazo Platform | 3CX | |--------|-------------------------------|----------------|----------------| | Starting price | Not publicly listed (sales-led approach) | Varies by offering and hosting | Public pricing exists but varies by edition and hosting model | | Best-fit | Organizations seeking open-source UC/contact-center with on-prem/cloud deployment flexibility and France/EU data residency options | Organizations aligned with the Wazo ecosystem and roadmap; purchasers assessing forked lineage | SMB to midmarket organizations seeking a commercial UC platform with broad device support and partner ecosystem | | Key strength | Open-source architecture and interoperability; documented references in French public sector | Independent project lineage and ecosystem | Large install base and third-party resources; clearer packaging for many buyers | | Key weakness | Limited mainstream review coverage; unclear public pricing; no publicly documented SOC2/ISO27001 evidence found in the materials reviewed | Buyers should evaluate the vendor and support model due to fork history | Community reports of pricing complexity and vendor strategy changes in some markets | Narrative analysis - Direct competitors and differentiators - Wazo vs XiVO - Wazo originated as a fork of XiVO; project hosting and source availability changes in XiVO’s history contributed to the fork. Enterprises should assess roadmap stability, governance, and commercial support availability for each distribution. - 3CX vs XiVO - 3CX provides a commercial UC stack with broader third-party coverage and clearer packaging for many procurement scenarios, although community discussions note pricing complexity and occasional vendor-driven changes. - Cloud UCaaS/CCaaS (Nextiva, RingCentral, Genesys) - These platforms often provide faster deployment with less telecom engineering required, clearer subscription models, and published compliance documentation in a trust-center format (varies by vendor). - Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives - The open-source model can reduce licensing costs for some deployments, but the lack of published pricing increases procurement uncertainty. - Commercial competitors may publish more explicit pricing structures, but total cost comparisons remain dependent on hosting, integration, SIP trunking, and professional services. - Market share and adoption trends - Vendor and acquirer materials report customer counts and usage figures; these figures are vendor-supplied and were not independently audited in this research run. - Independent market share data from major analyst firms was not retrieved in the accessible sources during this run.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Avencall XiVO (vendor website)	Wazo Platform	3CX
Starting price	Not publicly listed (sales-led approach)	Varies by offering and hosting	Public pricing exists but varies by edition and hosting model
Best-fit	Organizations seeking open-source UC/contact-center with on-prem/cloud deployment flexibility and France/EU data residency options	Organizations aligned with the Wazo ecosystem and roadmap; purchasers assessing forked lineage	SMB to midmarket organizations seeking a commercial UC platform with broad device support and partner ecosystem
Key strength	Open-source architecture and interoperability; documented references in French public sector	Independent project lineage and ecosystem	Large install base and third-party resources; clearer packaging for many buyers
Key weakness	Limited mainstream review coverage; unclear public pricing; no publicly documented SOC2/ISO27001 evidence found in the materials reviewed	Buyers should evaluate the vendor and support model due to fork history	Community reports of pricing complexity and vendor strategy changes in some markets

Narrative analysis

Direct competitors and differentiators
- Wazo vs XiVO
  - Wazo originated as a fork of XiVO; project hosting and source availability changes in XiVO’s history contributed to the fork. Enterprises should assess roadmap stability, governance, and commercial support availability for each distribution.
- 3CX vs XiVO
  - 3CX provides a commercial UC stack with broader third-party coverage and clearer packaging for many procurement scenarios, although community discussions note pricing complexity and occasional vendor-driven changes.
- Cloud UCaaS/CCaaS (Nextiva, RingCentral, Genesys)
  - These platforms often provide faster deployment with less telecom engineering required, clearer subscription models, and published compliance documentation in a trust-center format (varies by vendor).
Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives
- The open-source model can reduce licensing costs for some deployments, but the lack of published pricing increases procurement uncertainty.
- Commercial competitors may publish more explicit pricing structures, but total cost comparisons remain dependent on hosting, integration, SIP trunking, and professional services.
Market share and adoption trends
- Vendor and acquirer materials report customer counts and usage figures; these figures are vendor-supplied and were not independently audited in this research run.
- Independent market share data from major analyst firms was not retrieved in the accessible sources during this run.

Aspect

Avencall XiVO (vendor website)

Wazo Platform

3CX

Starting price

Not publicly listed (sales-led approach)

Varies by offering and hosting

Public pricing exists but varies by edition and hosting model

Best-fit

Organizations seeking open-source UC/contact-center with on-prem/cloud deployment flexibility and France/EU data residency options

Organizations aligned with the Wazo ecosystem and roadmap; purchasers assessing forked lineage

SMB to midmarket organizations seeking a commercial UC platform with broad device support and partner ecosystem

Key strength

Open-source architecture and interoperability; documented references in French public sector

Independent project lineage and ecosystem

Large install base and third-party resources; clearer packaging for many buyers

Key weakness

Limited mainstream review coverage; unclear public pricing; no publicly documented SOC2/ISO27001 evidence found in the materials reviewed

Buyers should evaluate the vendor and support model due to fork history

Community reports of pricing complexity and vendor strategy changes in some markets