dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
18779
aibojk
join:2004-05-25
Richmond Hill, ON

aibojk

Member

VOIP.ms vs Anveo

Has anyone compared the voice quality and reliability between these 2 VOIP providers? Experience from Canadian users will be even more helpful!

I just tried Anveo and I am having issues with it (discussed in another thread). I hope it's just a matter of getting the settings right. But I want to keep my VOIP.ms option open in case Anveo does not work out.

VOIP.ms requires a initial deposit of $25. I want to get a sense of how good VOIP.ms is before putting $25 into it.

Thanks!
decx
Premium Member
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC

decx

Premium Member

said by aibojk:

Has anyone compared the voice quality and reliability between these 2 VOIP providers? Experience from Canadian users will be even more helpful!

I just tried Anveo and I am having issues with it (discussed in another thread). I hope it's just a matter of getting the settings right. But I want to keep my VOIP.ms option open in case Anveo does not work out.

VOIP.ms requires a initial deposit of $25. I want to get a sense of how good VOIP.ms is before putting $25 into it.

Thanks!

Well I've been using it for a few weeks and mostly it works. Voice quality in general is fine though overseas calls sometimes do have some quality issues (on value routing). I do have some issues calling external SIP URIs that I (and tech support) haven't been able to solve).

As for the initial deposit, it is refundable if you decide to cancel your account.
joe11230
Premium Member
join:2012-03-19
USA

joe11230

Premium Member

Not sure about Anveo, but I had some experience with VOIP.ms with buying DID's from them and forwarding it to my SIP lines using a SIP URI. They have been great with US DIDs, but hadn't had the best experience with their Canadian DIDs. You better test them before you buy/port, because apparently their source is often having some transcoding issues when going SIP > SIP. (seems like media is always coming directly from the source AKA underlying CLEC's and their switch is not compatible with some other switches]. If you plan on doing Call forwarding through the PSTN with their DID's you probably may have better luck but it's costly [Per minute]. That's actually what I ended up doing until my provider was able to port the number away from them to their own Canadian affiliates.

Arne Bolen
User of Anveo Direct, 3CX and Qubes OS.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-21
Utopia

Arne Bolen to aibojk

Premium Member

to aibojk
I have a long experience with both VoIP.ms and Anveo.

Voice quality
With VoIP.ms I always use Premium routing.
Voice quality on VoIP.ms Premium routing is mostly good, but there are calls with less good quality. Something like 9 out of 10 calls have a good audio quality.

The audio quality with Anveo is better and something like 99 out of 100 calls have an excellent audio quality. About 1 out of 100 calls have "only" a good audio quality.

Reliability
Here we can see the real difference. VoIP.ms can't compete with Anveo on reliability, Anveo is a clear winner.

I am normally a very patient voip user and I don't give up easily. However, after one year of suffering from reliability issues I finally gave up and moved on to Anveo.

After the move I could enjoy my morning coffee without being stressed. Before the move I started almost every day by testing if I could call my phone numbers. And several times during the day I performed the same test.

I should add that my coffee bill was a lot higher before the switch to Anveo. I needed to drink almost a gallon of coffee in order to be polite when I contacted VoIP.ms support.

The WAF score for VoIP.ms is probably around 60, depending on how patient the wife is. For Anveo the WAF score hits 100.

It should be noted that VoIP.ms has 13 POP servers, so you can change POP server if there are too many issues.
mikefxu
join:2004-10-05
Titusville, FL

mikefxu

Member

Arne thanks for your input. We started with VoIP.ms over two years ago for two project sites. Nothing has changed our end but the services has. Went from only having problems when we had Internet outages, of course, to users saying the service sucks, dropped calls mostly. Our next VoIPable project will utilize Anveo. I have personally switch form VoIP.ms to Anveo and really like all the advanced features. The pricing is too close to keep making excuses for VoIP.ms.
JJ_GTA
Premium Member
join:2009-04-01
Ontario

JJ_GTA to aibojk

Premium Member

to aibojk
I use both VoIP.ms and Anveo.

For Canadian use, Anveo does not process outbound toll free calling within Canada as well as VoIP.MS (At least for the numbers I call).

I also notice Anveo does not process my outbound CallerID name (Canada issue).

Not a problem for my U.S. family that uses Anveo.

Uptime has been better with Anveo.

Arne Bolen
User of Anveo Direct, 3CX and Qubes OS.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-21
Utopia

Arne Bolen

Premium Member

said by JJ_GTA:

Uptime has been better with Anveo.

I have not experienced any downtime with Anveo during my 1.5 years with them. I didn't even notice any problems during the recent DDOS attack.
Arne Bolen

Arne Bolen to mikefxu

Premium Member

to mikefxu
said by mikefxu:

Our next VoIPable project will utilize Anveo. I have personally switch form VoIP.ms to Anveo and really like all the advanced features.

To be fair Anveo is a business phone provider while VoIP.ms is a residential provider.

A business account with Anveo costs $44.85/month, thus making it possible for Anveo to provide a high class service.

You pay no monthly fees with VoIP.ms and that makes it impossible for VoIP.ms to provide the same high class service as Anveo.

IMO VoIP.ms has done very well considering the lack of monthly fees.
Mango
Use DMZ and you get a kick in the dick.
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net

Mango to JJ_GTA

Premium Member

to JJ_GTA
said by JJ_GTA:

I also notice Anveo does not process my outbound CallerID name (Canada issue).

The lack of Canadian Caller ID Name support is the main reason I don't use Anveo They support inbound Caller ID Name via CNAM Lookup but that only covers a fraction of Canada. Other than that I am very impressed.

wcweaver
Premium Member
join:2002-02-22
Fort Myers, FL

1 recommendation

wcweaver to aibojk

Premium Member

to aibojk
Hey Mango,

I like your new Avatar.
borntochill
join:2003-02-09
united state

borntochill to aibojk

Member

to aibojk
In the last year I've set up seven DIDs with voip.ms for myself and clients. Service has been flawless and far superior to the VSPs I used before (Vonage & Viatalk). I set up one of my clients, a small architecture firm, with a multi-handset SIP phone system with six separate voip.ms subaccounts and IVR, voicemail boxes, etc. and am gobsmacked with how well it all integrates and how inexpensive it is. It's a giant leap forward from the Vonage service they had before.

All voip.ms service I've set up is US-based and I've no experience with Anveo. I'm definitely looking at Anveo and am impressed with their ever-growing feature set, although I find their pricing/services options confusing. They also appear to cost more than voip.ms.

crazyk4952
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
united state
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR
Polycom VVX300

crazyk4952 to aibojk

Premium Member

to aibojk
said by aibojk:

Has anyone compared the voice quality and reliability between these 2 VOIP providers?

Funny you should ask. I have just done a comparison between these two providers for outgoing calls recently.

I use voip.ms as my primary provider, but decided to temporarily switch my outgoing calls to anveo for a couple of days.

voip.ms (premium)
Calls are almost always very clear with little latency.
The vast majority of calls are successfully connected.

Anveo
People that I called sounded 'distant'. Also, the audio quality was not as good (The difference was like going from a good voip line to a cell phone). I also experienced a call disconnect. When I tried to call the number back, it would not go through (I finally had to call back on my cell phone).

I have not tried Anveo again since this experiment since this reduced the WAF quite a bit....
crazyk4952

1 edit

crazyk4952 to Arne Bolen

Premium Member

to Arne Bolen
said by Arne Bolen:

Reliability
Here we can see the real difference. VoIP.ms can't compete with Anveo on reliability, Anveo is a clear winner.

I am normally a very patient voip user and I don't give up easily. However, after one year of suffering from reliability issues I finally gave up and moved on to Anveo.

I agree with you here to a certain extent. When I first signed up with voip.ms several years ago, they were much less reliable than they are today. I can't remember experiencing any downtime with them in the last year.

This must be why new feature releases have slowed to a crawl with them... Perhaps they have been just focusing on reliability!?

Edit: According to a traceroute, I have 19 hops with Anveo and only 11 with the closest voip.ms server. Perhaps this could explain the difference that I am experiencing?

Arne Bolen
User of Anveo Direct, 3CX and Qubes OS.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-21
Utopia

Arne Bolen

Premium Member

said by crazyk4952:

Perhaps they have been just focusing on reliability!?

That would be great news.
Arne Bolen

Arne Bolen to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango
said by Mango:

The lack of Canadian Caller ID Name support is the main reason I don't use Anveo

Is the Canadian Caller ID Name more reliable than the US CNAME? I'm curious because the American CNAME doesn't seem to be of any value.
rudeboy24
join:2002-10-14
Welland, ON

rudeboy24

Member

The CNAME works with almost every number i call using value route.
Im on VOIP.MS in Ontario with a Ontario DID, calling canadian numbers.

Trev
AcroVoice & DryVoIP Official Rep
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC

1 recommendation

Trev to Arne Bolen

Premium Member

to Arne Bolen
said by Arne Bolen:

Is the Canadian Caller ID Name more reliable than the US CNAME? I'm curious because the American CNAME doesn't seem to be of any value.

Yes and no, but mostly yes.

The problem with American CNAM is that there are so many third party data sources available that are out of date. If there wasn't a race to the bottom for price, you would have high quality CNAM that comes directly from the caller's telco database. Instead, it's all about saving money so third party databases are used which often times take a very long time to update. Some use poor data sources which are incredibly out of date or flat out inaccurate.

We have two CNAM systems here. One requires database dips. This is the same as the American system. If you obtain data from Telus or Bell, it's going to be very accurate. If you obtain your data from a third party, while significantly more cost effective, it's more likely to contain stale data.

The other system allows us to send CNAM with the call. This way there is no database dip to do and thus no option to find incorrect information. The caller's phone company sends the name with the call. The callee's phone company just has to pass it along to their customer.

It's very, very common to see properly capitalized names in Canada now because of this. Also, the name can change based on which phone is used. For example, if I were to call Mango he would see Trev@AcroVoice show up on his phone with my company's main number. If Ryan called him, he'd see Ryan@AcroVoice and still see the same number.

You can't do that with the American system
rudeboy24
join:2002-10-14
Welland, ON

1 recommendation

rudeboy24

Member

Yay canada ..:)
Mango
Use DMZ and you get a kick in the dick.
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net

2 edits

Mango to crazyk4952

Premium Member

to crazyk4952
said by crazyk4952:

This must be why new feature releases have slowed to a crawl with them... Perhaps they have been just focusing on reliability!?

From experience, this is not the reason. My script that detects an unreachable PoP and reroutes my DID to another one has done this seven times in the past three weeks.

Also, my employer had a conference call between its directors this morning. Due to an unrelated issue with the CLEC we usually use, I used two of my VoIP.ms DIDs as the dial-in numbers for the conference call. The VoIP.ms DIDs were forwarded to the conference call service.

Though this worked in testing, it did not work in practice. According to the CDR, out of 158 attempts at incoming calls (I admire their persistence) only one was forwarded to the conference call service. The call that worked only lasted 26 seconds and I haven't yet spoken to the caller to ask what happened.

(Edit to add: the conference call may still be going on so I don't know if there are any calls in progress that worked.)

(Edit again: Out of 161 attempts, 1 failed after 26 seconds, 3 worked.)

I verified with VoIP.ms support that I did not have a low simultaneous call limit, both before and after the call. The problem disappeared by itself and neither VoIP.ms support nor I know why it happened.
JJ_GTA
Premium Member
join:2009-04-01
Ontario

JJ_GTA to Trev

Premium Member

to Trev
said by Trev:

It's very, very common to see properly capitalized names in Canada now because of this. Also, the name can change based on which phone is used. For example, if I were to call Mango he would see Trev@AcroVoice show up on his phone with my company's main number. If Ryan called him, he'd see Ryan@AcroVoice and still see the same number.

You can't do that with the American system

For my US offices I do pass my own CNAM over Verizon and ATT PRIs. I've never had a problem with my version of Caller ID going out. Is it just a VoIP limitation for US CNAM?

Trev
AcroVoice & DryVoIP Official Rep
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC

Trev

Premium Member

said by JJ_GTA:

For my US offices I do pass my own CNAM over Verizon and ATT PRIs. I've never had a problem with my version of Caller ID going out. Is it just a VoIP limitation for US CNAM?

I hadn't heard of this being done before. How long have you been able to do that? Do you know for sure that the CNAM makes it to the called party, even if they are with a carrier other than your PRI provider?

crazyk4952
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
united state
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR
Polycom VVX300

crazyk4952 to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango
said by Mango:

said by crazyk4952:

This must be why new feature releases have slowed to a crawl with them... Perhaps they have been just focusing on reliability!?

From experience, this is not the reason. My script that detects an unreachable PoP and reroutes my DID to another one has done this seven times in the past three weeks.

Also, my employer had a conference call between its directors this morning. Due to an unrelated issue with the CLEC we usually use, I used two of my VoIP.ms DIDs as the dial-in numbers for the conference call. The VoIP.ms DIDs were forwarded to the conference call service.

Though this worked in testing, it did not work in practice. According to the CDR, out of 158 attempts at incoming calls (I admire their persistence) only one was forwarded to the conference call service. The call that worked only lasted 26 seconds and I haven't yet spoken to the caller to ask what happened.

(Edit to add: the conference call may still be going on so I don't know if there are any calls in progress that worked.)

(Edit again: Out of 161 attempts, 1 failed after 26 seconds, 3 worked.)

I verified with VoIP.ms support that I did not have a low simultaneous call limit, both before and after the call. The problem disappeared by itself and neither VoIP.ms support nor I know why it happened.

Hmm. Well that is no good. Do you have to request a high simultaneous call limit? I thought it was limited to 2 calls per standard DID. Also, were you forwarding your VoIP.ms DIDs to the conference line through the PSTN? The latency is too high whenever I try to forward my DID to another telephone number.

Arne Bolen
User of Anveo Direct, 3CX and Qubes OS.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-21
Utopia

Arne Bolen to Trev

Premium Member

to Trev
said by Trev:

It's very, very common to see properly capitalized names in Canada now because of this. Also, the name can change based on which phone is used. For example, if I were to call Mango he would see Trev@AcroVoice show up on his phone with my company's main number. If Ryan called him, he'd see Ryan@AcroVoice and still see the same number.

Thanks for the explanation. I really like this system. I just wish the Europeans could adopt a similar system.
Mango
Use DMZ and you get a kick in the dick.
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net

1 edit

Mango to crazyk4952

Premium Member

to crazyk4952
I have PAYG DIDs, not flat-rate. I have 25 channels per DID and 10 channels for outgoing calls. I never requested this number, though I heard that new DIDs have 5 channels, not 25. It seemed like the issue was to do with the outgoing portion of the call, as the incoming calls all made it to the CDR.

The forward was via the PSTN. There was latency but it was only perceptible when I tested with two phones in the same location. When the callers were in different locations, it wasn't detectable. Thankfully, I did not receive any complaints about audio quality. I monitored part of the call and it sounded solid.

crazyk4952
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
united state

1 recommendation

crazyk4952

Premium Member

Looks like the flat rate residential DIDs come with 2 channels. The PAYG DIDs still have 25 channels (even for new orders).
JJ_GTA
Premium Member
join:2009-04-01
Ontario

JJ_GTA to Trev

Premium Member

to Trev
said by Trev:

I hadn't heard of this being done before. How long have you been able to do that? Do you know for sure that the CNAM makes it to the called party, even if they are with a carrier other than your PRI provider?

I recall it works with the LD circuits. The local PRIs have the company name hardcoded.

I can't test with my DIDs since VoIP.ms is doing a CNAM lookup. I'll have to find a POTS line with CallerID to test with.
pmosher
join:2006-11-21
Oakville, ON

pmosher to Mango

Member

to Mango
Mango, I would really appreciate some elaboration on this point, as I'm also impressed with Anveo (and also in Canada).

The following appears on the Features page for phone numbers:

NEW USA and CANADA Anveo phone numbers come with FREE CNAM (CallerID with Name) support

Is this only partial support, compromised somehow? I would like to use Anveo for my main provider (incoming and outgoing) because of the tremendous features, but am would like full support for CallerID Name if possible.

Edit: posted in response to Mango's comment about not using Anveo because of lack of Canadian CallerID name support.

Thanks -- Pauline
Mango
Use DMZ and you get a kick in the dick.
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net

Mango

Premium Member

Check back in a few weeks; I got a PM from Anveo stating they are trying to improve this
mikefxu
join:2004-10-05
Titusville, FL

mikefxu to aibojk

Member

to aibojk
Just got notification that our "business" VoIP.ms account is low on funds, just closed out my personal VoIP.ms account and transferred it to our "business" account to satisfy that low balance. We will test out Anveo at the same site to give VoIP a consideration for future projects, currently its a no go. In the past we have had 2-4 lines of POTS.
LanAdmin
join:2010-11-07
Montreal, QC

LanAdmin to aibojk

Member

to aibojk
I am using VoIP.ms as my only home phone with G.711u "value route".
SPA2102 with "FXS Port Input Gain": -5 (to eliminate echo).

Never had a single issue within a year. I have a very stable internet cable connection with ElectronicBox.net.