Common triggers: you can't get a straight answer on how a score was reached; you need deeper, more connected workflows; or the tool only covers human agents and you're now blending in AI. Any one of those is usually reason enough to properly compare a couple of alternatives.

Will switching platforms mean losing historical QA data?

It depends on the vendor and how you migrate, but most serious alternatives offer some form of data import or a parallel-running period so you're not scoring blind on day one. Worth asking directly before you commit.

Is it risky to run two QA platforms in parallel during a switch?

Not inherently — plenty of teams run old and new in parallel for a few weeks to sanity-check scores line up before cutting over fully.

Do alternatives to bigger platforms cost less?

Not always. Some established names price competitively at smaller seat counts, while newer AI-native tools can get expensive fast at volume. Worth comparing total cost, not just headline pricing.

What should I compare beyond price when evaluating an alternative?

Explainability of scoring, whether it covers AI as well as human interactions, and whether you're locked into one specific contact center platform or it works across whatever you're already using.

See it yourself

See what evaluagent actually does

Skip the write-up — take a self-guided look at how evaluagent actually scores conversations.

Take the tour