Market Guide for Global SIP Trunking Services

Published 2 April 2020 - ID G00719705 - 22 min read

By Analysts Katja Ruud, Lisa Pierce, Rafael Benitez, Bjarne Munch

Initiatives:Cloud and Edge Infrastructure

Enterprises are migrating from TDM to SIP trunks for PSTN/ISDN access. I&O leaders
responsible for networking should use this research to support their gathering of
requirements and evaluate them against vendors in the market, balancing agility, resilience and
price.

Overview
Key Findings
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

■ The SIP trunking market competitive landscape is composed of several provider types:
communications service providers (CSPs), unified communications as a service (UCaaS),
communications platform as a service (cPaaS) and pure-play Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
service providers.

■ Historically, the main driver for migrating to SIP has been cost savings vis-à-vis time division
multiplexing (TDM). But as providers in some countries begin to turn off their TDM networks,
this also compels enterprises to transition to SIP trunks. Other aspects include centralization
initiatives and higher availability requirements (such as alternative routing on failures) from
being Internet Protocol (IP)-based. The increased phasing out of TDM, or the impending
unavailability of TDM, has an impact.

■ SIP trunking services are rapidly evolving, and there are notable differences between providers’
services, including features, deployment options, pricing models, geographic coverage and
service-level agreements.

Recommendations
■ Ensure a SIP environment that’s fit for purpose by taking inventory of critical used features on
existing TDM trunks, and confirm that SIP offers have these features. Be mindful that the
competitive landscape is wider than that of TDM voice services. Run a competitive tender and
invite different types of providers.

■ Guarantee availability where it is a critical priority by using a network service provider that can
deliver a highly resilient access data network service along with the SIP trunking service, which
can be provided with an E2E SLA.

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 1/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
■ Confirm the availability and usability of capabilities you require (administrative, reporting,
alarms and so on) by evaluating the self-service portals through demo access accounts.

■ Achieve lower costs by prepurchasing of minutes of use (60% to 70% of expected monthly
consumption), and do not accept installation/deployment charges exceeding 5% of the three-
year total cost of ownership (TCO).

■ Ensure a robust service delivery by using a managed enterprise session border controller (eSBC)
from the provider instead of operating an SBC in-house when in-house voice over IP (VoIP)
expertise is scarce.

■ Avoid cost surprises for U.S. deployments by obtaining a good-faith estimate of expected taxes
before signing an agreement, since IP communications may be taxed differently than TDM.

Strategic Planning Assumption

This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

By 2022, all network service providers in North America and Western Europe will announce the end
of support of ISDN PRI service.

Market Definition
SIP trunks are IP-based trunks for voice-band calls to/from the public switched telephone network
(PSTN), and, potentially, video calls to and from the enterprise. They typically replace analog phone
lines and/or ISDN voice lines.

Market Description
This market has evolved from basic voice functionality to feature-rich voice offerings with several
options to ensure services are optimized — to the user base size, the distribution of users, the
required level of redundancy or consumption pattern. The service is composed of three main
components:

■ A PBX (an IP-PBX, PBX with a SIP trunk-enabled interface or, if a legacy PBX is used, gateways
to connect to SIP trunks)

■ SIP-enabled edge device

■ SIP trunks from a provider

There are at least four types of providers:

■ “Traditional” CSPs that may also provide access network services and bundle service elements

■ UCaaS providers

■ cPaaS

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 2/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
■ Pure-play domestic SIP trunking service providers that focus solely on the provision of SIP
trunks in a specific geography

There are several attributes of SIP trunking services, as shown in Figure 1, and these are frequently
applied in service provider evaluations and addressed in more detail in the Market Analysis section.

Figure 1: SIP Trunking Attributes

This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

Market Direction
Enterprises are moving to SIP trunking for several specific and strong reasons — one is that TDM
services are being decommissioned in many places around the world. The exact timetables are not
fully known, but most providers in North America and Europe have already put a stop-sell on TDM
services. By 2025, there will likely only be very few providers left in Europe still supporting the
service. With end-of-sale milestones a few years before them, enterprises must strategize around
the future requirement for fixed voice services.

Another driver toward moving to SIP trunking is the potential for cost reductions that SIP trunking
services offer. The basic chargeable elements associated with trunking of any kind (digital, analog
or SIP) include:

■ Facility charges

■ Charges for concurrent call paths

■ Rate of minutes of use for toll-free and national/international long-distance calls

■ Charges for supplementary trunk features

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 3/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
■ Charges for on-premises equipment to terminate the trunk service (such as trunk cards and
SBCs) and the often overlooked charge

■ Cost of implementing the project

A third reason is greater flexibility. SIP trunking offers the ability to purchase a service that is a
better fit for organizations with changing requirements (for example, temporary increases in call
volumes). A fourth is the added resiliency of SIP trunking, which reduces the risk of a complete
outage at any one site.

On a global basis, a 15% to 30% cost reduction (on a like-for-like comparison with TDM) is
achievable. In terms of maturity, the vast majority (more than 80%) of enterprises in North America
have some SIP trunking in their production environments, yet only a minority have fully completed
their migration to SIP trunking. European deployments are well underway, although less than 20%
are fully completed deployments. In other regions, the numbers are smaller.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

As enterprise PSTN connectivity has been steadily shifting from digital and analog trunking to SIP,
VoIP has simultaneously enabled a shift in the architecture of enterprise voice solutions, resulting
in a migration from traditional site-based PBXs to centralized voice solutions delivered from a
corporate data center. However, achieving the optimal balance between cost and performance
requires planning and selecting the trunk architecture that best meets environmental factors and
objectives. The choice and their respective use cases are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of SIP Trunk Architectures

Architecture Advantages Disadvantages Best for

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 4/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
 Centralized ■ Consolidates ■ Introduces risk of single ■ Multisite enterprises
and reduces point of failure (which operating mostly in one
the number of can be mitigated) by country, with sufficient
trunks eliminating the diversity WAN bandwidth and
of multiple entry points quality
■ Employs the
to the PSTN from each
fewest ■ Enterprises or
site
session organizations that are
border ■ Requires traffic predominantly in a single
controllers engineering to determine location or campus (such
(SBCs), the required amount of as universities and
reducing trunks hospitals)
operational
■ Potentially places
complexity
additional quality of
■ Simplifies the service (QoS) and
PBX dial plan, bandwidth demands on
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
as there is the WAN
only one route
■ Requires special
to the PSTN
considerations and
■ Reduces planning for the proper
billing operation of emergency
processing services (such as 911 in
complexity the U.S. or 112 in Europe)
(more than
any other
architecture)

■ Improves
voice
flexibility, with
phone
numbers no
longer rigidly
linked to
locations

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 5/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
 Decentralized ■ Provides ■ Its lower trunk and ■ Multisite enterprises that
inherent access port have not centralized voice
resiliency due consolidation/reduction and unified
to more does not maximize communications (UC)
numerous savings as much as infrastructure
and diverse centralized architecture
■ Holding companies that
PSTN access
■ Higher operational want to retain subsidiary
points
complexity and effort independence
■ Good fit for because of need for more
voice SBCs
deployments
■ More dial plans to
that have
manage, increasing
many PBXs
system management
■ Requires least overhead
design effort
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
and is least
complex to
implement

■ Does not
require new
traffic
engineering

Hybrid ■ Allows ■ Does not maximize cost ■ Enterprises with a suitable

establishment savings as deeply as WAN for real-time voice
of a custom centralized architecture services, and with a mixture
balance of high-priority sites (such
between cost as contact centers) and
savings and standard priority sites
resiliency
■ Multinational corporations
requirements
with regional voice and UC
hubs

■ Organizations with large,

diverse footprints that
want to retain a local
presence, (such as retail
stores)

Source: Gartner (March 2020)

Although not all enterprises can realize a centralized trunk design because of constraints such as
existing infrastructure, regulation, lack of service availability and so on, the deepest savings are

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 6/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
realized with this architecture. Once the enterprise embarks on a SIP migration project, the next
issue to resolve is the best way to arrange the termination of SIP trunks across the enterprise, and
how many trunks to purchase. This is a design “issue” that drives the need to understand the
various architectures and to select the proper one.

There are many providers of SIP trunking services. At a domestic level, incumbents and challengers
in North America, Europe and mature Asia/Pacific have offered SIP for several years already. Many
global providers offer services across multiple countries, with the largest footprints with DID or TF
in around 100 countries and with local calling in 35 to 40 countries. However, there are differences
between Tier 1 countries — in which full PSTN replacement is offered, including emergency
services — and lower tiered countries where the services are more limited and may therefore not be
suitable to replace TDM voice. The geographic coverage varies substantially by provider. Many of
the more mature markets also have several pure-play providers that compete aggressively on price.
Consequently, the competitive landscape is significantly wider than that of the legacy voice
services, and an unexpected provider may in fact be the most appropriate. For a list of
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

representative providers from all four segments, see the Representative Vendors section further in
this research.

Market Analysis
Among the attributes shown in Figure 1, there are seven that are more critical to operational
performance and that enterprises should use when evaluating SIP trunking offers:

■ Voice features and virtual numbers

■ Fraud detection, prevention and protection

■ Encryption and security

■ Geographical coverage

■ Lowered pricing via bursting and pooling

■ Interoperability with vendor-specific devices or platforms and transport

■ Service-level agreements

These attributes and their associated Gartner recommendations are detailed in the sections that
follow.

Voice Features and Virtual Numbers

Many SIP trunk features mimic those offered over a TDM-based infrastructure, and features
include those that process calls, control media, ensure business continuity, and provide important
monitoring and management functions. Common SIP trunk features include:

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 7/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
■ Call-processing features. Examples include emergency services such as 911/112, caller line
identity, time-of-day routing voicemail, auto-attendant, find me/follow me and hunt groups.

■ Media-focused features, such as supported codec (e.g., G.711, G.722, G.729), media flow-
around and T.38 fax relay.

■ Business continuity features, such as alternate call routing and overflow for incoming calls.

■ Management features, including administration of features like call processing or business

continuity functions, management reports and online portals that allow easy access to
information such as call detail, performance and orders, alarms, proportional routing based on
customer specifications, and toll restrictions.

Recommendation: Since offers vary, state functionality as specifically as possible (such as if you
need a particular length of account code),
Thisand include
research note iscontract language
restricted to the personalthat
use ofrequires your explicit
edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

approval of specific functionality prior to general service acceptance.

Fraud Detection, Prevention and Protection

Fraud can occur over SIP trunks for both inbound calls to the PSTN, as well as outbound calls from
it. Outbound calls are fraudulent when they originate from unauthorized users, and especially when
they incur expensive long distance charges. Fraudulent outbound calls can also terminate to
premium rate numbers, which also can lead to expensive usage charges. Inbound call fraud could
also incur usage charges if the calls are terminating to toll-free numbers and they consume a large
number of minutes. Inbound calls could also result in security risk if automatic number identity
(ANI; aka caller ID) spoofing is used to impersonate a customer and the caller gains access to
confidential information through an unsuspecting contact center agent.

SIP trunking service providers will often offer customers fraud prevention, detection and protection
for outbound calls. Detection generally involves technology that can detect anomalies in outgoing
calls, such as the volume of calls, or their duration or their destination. Some detection features
notify the provider or the customer when they detect fraud. Prevention is the act of blocking
outbound calls that are believed to be fraudulent. Finally, fraud protection is a plan that providers
offer customers to limit the liability (that is, the usage charges due to the provider) if undetected
fraudulent calls are made. In the U.S., total liability limits between $2,500 and $20,000 are typically
observed.

Recommendation: Confirm with providers that they offer fraud detection, fraud prevention and
fraud protection. Also confirm what the liability cap/limit is for fraudulent calls that incur charges.

Encryption and Security

For organizations using SIP trunking, signaling and payload encryption — specifically TLS and
SRTP — can happen in any of these three networks: in the enterprise network, in the access
network leading to the service provider, and in the provider network. Encryption is typically always

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 8/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
enabled in the enterprise network and in the service provider network. However, encryption is
seldom available as an option in the access network if private transport is used. The reason that
most SIP trunking providers don’t offer TLS and SRTP is that these encryption services require the
use of encryption certificates, and these are very difficult to manage and exchange efficiently
across organizational boundaries. However, in most cases, private networking services such as
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) are used as transport in the access network. MPLS
transport is considered to be sufficiently secure in the access network for most organizations. In
the cases where a public networking service is used in the access network (for example, internet
service), most providers will use an IPsec VPN tunnel to encrypt. Although encryption via IPSEC
VPN generally delivers adequate performance, it does add latency. In some less common cases
where latency budgets are already reaching the limit for acceptable audio quality (150 ms one
way), IPSEC VPNs may not be adequate, and an alternative may be MPLS/TLS encryption.

SIP trunking services implement another category of security features at the edge of their network.
This category includes topology hiding, port pin holing, rate limiting, distributed denial of service
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

(DDoS) protection, and malformed packet protection. These features are almost always
implemented in the provider’s access SBC, and they protect the provider’s internal network. The
SBC terminates the SIP trunks coming from the various enterprises that the provider hosts.
Similarly, organizations using SIP trunking will almost always use an enterprise SBC at the edge of
their network to provide the same security features and to terminate the SIP trunks from the
provider.

Recommendation: All enterprises should employ an eSBC. If voice services are critical, seek an
SBC with robust redundancy features (for example, redundant power supplies, redundant Ethernet
connectivity and redundant storage), or use a pair of SBCs to achieve higher availability.

Geographical Coverage
SIP trunking is being adopted by enterprises in developing regions around the globe, and there are
now SIP trunking services available in most countries; however, there are still no providers that can
offer a complete global service coverage. This is in part due to global providers’ rollouts of full
PSTN replacement capabilities, but also due to regulatory restrictions in several countries, which
prevents foreign operators from delivering full telephony. While a provider may be allowed to
deploy and manage an on-site IP PBX and manage voice over the enterprise WAN, the provider may
not be allowed to interconnect with the domestic PSTN and deliver national call routing.

To deliver a global SIP trunking solution, providers will need infrastructure in all relevant countries
to interact with the local PSTN providers for local number handling. Most providers have
inconsistencies in the countries they service with regard to the type of SIP trunking services they
offer — inbound, outbound, full PSTN replacement and toll-free. This means that they will rely on
their PSTN partners for more extensive PSTN carriage. This will limit or even prevent providers’
ability to offer customized number plans and routing, and it may also lead to higher call charges.
In all cases, the global providers will need to rely partly on their own WAN services and local
partners, as for any traditional global WAN service. As enterprises move their telephony onto an SIP
Gartner, Inc. | 719705
Page 9/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
trunking platform, they need to ensure that the global WAN is properly dimensioned and
configured.

Besides ensuring infrastructure in all relevant countries, enterprises should also ensure that the
provider has technical support staff in the region as well as a help desk operating during local
business hours.

Recommendation: Ensure that the providers clearly detail what services are included for each
country, as well as what partners are used for any local services.

Lowered Pricing via Bursting and Pooling

One of the primary drivers for migrating to SIP trunking services is the lower costs in developed
regions. These are the basic cost components of SIP trunking: facility charges, charges for
concurrent call paths, the price per minute for off-net calls, charges for value-added features and
charges for on-premises equipment to terminate the
This research trunk
note service.
is restricted On
to the a like-for-like
personal basis, the total
use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

cost of a SIP trunking solution vis-à-vis a TDM based solution can be up to 50% lower, especially
when using a centralized trunk architecture rather than a decentralized one. Since the traffic is
routed over the IP connection, significant savings come from the elimination of separate
PSTN/ISDN or similar access lines. Ethernet access plays an important role in delivering cost
savings. In the U.S., we note the following price differentials: a T1/DS1 is $150 per Mbps,
compared to 50 Mbps over Ethernet, which has dropped to $14 per Mbps. Overall price trends for
SIP trunking are also expected to decline at double-digit rates for the next few years. The edge
devices are usually also cheaper and the call rates significantly lower, if charged for at all. Scaling
is possible through buying more licenses for the edge device and/or allocating more bandwidth to
voice traffic. Moreover, the possibility for least-cost routing for nationwide outbound calling allows
for further cost optimization.

SIP trunking allows enterprises to buy the exact number of concurrent calls needed, rather than in
specific increments of 15, 23 or 30 lines. This ability to buy on a more granular basis is augmented
by features such as call bursting, which enables temporary use of further call sessions beyond
what has been bought. This is valuable when there could be instances where additional capacity
could be needed, such as in the case of an unexpected event. Call pooling is a further feature that
has an effect on overall cost. Rather than provision for peak consumption at every one location,
“pooling,” or sharing, of concurrent call sessions across the estate reduces the total number of
required trunks. This is possible because few locations are operating at peak capacity
simultaneously.

Recommendation: Use a competitive bid process and require a yearly rate review to take
advantage of the lowest rates, thereby saving an additional 10% to 20%.

Interoperability With Vendor-Specific Devices or Platforms and Transport

Relevant IETF specifications provide guidelines (such as RFC 3261, 3263, 3264 and 6140) that
require specification and implementation. For example, many vendors and some service providers

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 10/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
conform to industrywide specifications by going through certification testing (such as the SIP
Forum’s SIPconnect v. 2.0; see  “SIPconnect 1.1 Certified Products and Services Listing”).

However, depending on circumstances, there may not be enough validation evidence to ensure that
the desired functionality will operate on an end-to-end basis. Therefore, validate that a particular
vendor’s make, model and version number of VoIP gateway, SBC or IP PBX has met the
interoperability requirements of the SIP trunk service provider of interest. Do this for both SIP
signaling and the specific SIP features of interest.

Pay attention to the transport layer for the trunks. SIP trunks may be provisioned over transport in
three different ways:

1. Most SIP trunk providers support SIP over Ethernet access (over standard wavelength speeds or
even DOCSIS 3.1 connections), or over (unchannelized) T1/E1. Usually these are bundled with
the SIP Trunk service, but some providers allow clients to bring their own access to the SIP
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
providers’ edge, over which they run the SIP service.

2. An alternative approach is to employ over-the-top (OTT) SIP trunk services (such as those
offered by Twilio, Bria Solo or Bandwidth) where the service operates independently from the
lower transport and access layers (TCP/IP, MPLS).

3. Finally, as SIP is a transport-agnostic protocol, it is not restricted to wireline transmission. For

example, some 4G/LTE providers offer voice over Long Term Evolution (VoLTE), which
essentially employs SIP signaling over LTE. Provider examples include Verizon, Telefónica and
Vodafone.

Recommendation: In addition to verifying certification with relevant industry standards, also

validate that a particular vendor’s make, model and version of VoIP gateway, SBC or IP PBX has
met the interoperability requirements of the SIP trunk service provider of interest. Do this for both
SIP signaling and the required SIP features.

Service-Level Agreements
SIP trunking service-level agreements are generally composed of several different elements, such
as availability, time to repair, performance and on-time provisioning. Enterprise-class SIP-trunk
providers also provide SLAs around call quality — most commonly using the mean opinion score
(MOS). Given the variation in provider infrastructure across countries, specific SLAs will vary in
metrics by geography (for example, ranging from 99.999% availability to 99.9%).

All providers will offer a “service availability” guarantee, but the scope typically only includes the
server in the provider’s data center, where the providers offer 99.9% to 99.99% availability. This
guarantee may include connectivity to the PSTN, and if any SBC is deployed in the provider’s data
center, this may be included. Any equipment deployed in the enterprise office or data center, such
as an integrated access device (IAD) or SBC, may have a separate availability guarantee if it is
managed by the provider. But no provider will offer an end-to-end service availability guarantee.

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 11/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
If the provider also manages the underlying transport network, such as MPLS, it will offer a
separate availability service-level agreement for that service depending on each branch office WAN
design. Even if the provider operates and manages the WAN service, there are few providers that
offer a voice quality guarantee, such as a MOS score of 3.7 or higher, but they will generally offer
traditional QoS guarantees for a managed MPLS or Ethernet WAN service.

Few providers offer any type of call setup time or call success guarantee, nor any
add/move/change guarantees. Providers are, however, evolving their online portals to include not
only service reporting, but also order and fault ticketing reporting, as well as self-service
capabilities (see “How to Interconnect With Azure, AWS and Google Backbones”).

Recommendation: Ensure that the providers clearly specify what is included in any proposed SLAs,
and what is not, for each site using the service.

Representative Vendors This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

Market Introduction
There are several different types of providers. Table 2 shows examples of different providers in
different geographies.

Table 2: Representative Vendors in Global SIP Trunking

Provider Service Name

 8x8 8x8 SIP Trunking

 AT&T IP Flexible Reach

 Amazon Web Services (AWS) Amazon Chime Voice Connector

 BT One Voice

 BICS BICS SIP Trunking

 CenturyLink IQ SIP Trunk

 Colt Colt SIP Trunking

 Masergy Intelligent SIP Trunking

 NTT Arcstar SIP Trunking

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 12/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
  Orange Business Services Business Talk

 Tata Communications Global SIP Connect

 Telefónica SIP Trunking/Voice in the Cloud

 Telstra SIP Connect

 Twilio Elastic SIP Trunking

 Verizon IP Trunking

This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

 Vodafone Group Global SIP Trunking

 Vonage-Nexmo Vonage SIP Trunking

 Voxbone Voxbone SIP Trunks

Source: Gartner (March 2020)

The vendors listed in this Market Guide do not imply an exhaustive list. This section is intended to
provide more understanding of the market and its offerings.

Market Recommendations
Given the ongoing trend of decommissioning TDM infrastructure in many places around the world,
enterprises should now familiarize themselves with the time frame for that decommissioning of
currently used providers, and be insistent if the providers are vague. This is a good time to review
the voice strategy overall: Evaluate who needs what telephony features and for what purpose, and
where those users are. Currently, many environments are characterized by blanket rollouts for
traditional voice, mobile voice and UC in some form. That means that users have multiple access
points to the same functionality through different devices, services and applications. This may
cause user confusion and excess costs. Consequently, a SIP rollout may not need to be a complete
replication of the previous TDM infrastructure.

In the evaluation for SIP trunk service providers, review capabilities through three main segments:

■ Technical/functional — Does the provider offer the required mix of voice features, security,
geographic coverage, types of calls (local, domestic, international toll free, emergency calls,
etc.)?

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 13/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
■ Service wrap — Online capabilities for reporting, ordering, ticketing and so on. SLA environment
and track record, and responsibilities of relevant roles, such as the account manager.

■ Commercial — Is the price competitive? What does the pricing model look like? Several offers
include on-net traffic, but the definition of “on-net” varies. Are there measures to keep the price
competitive, such as through rate review clauses?

For each of these three segments, be certain to clarify what is currently offered, as well as where
and how. SIP trunk services are still evolving with regular enhancements. It is therefore important
to also have clarity as to what enhancements have been approved and are fully funded so that
they will definitely become available to clients. From Gartner inquiries, we see evidence of thorough
vendor selection taking these three aspects into perspective, though weighted differently from
enterprise to enterprise, which significantly increases the likelihood of a successful SIP trunking
service deployment.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

Evidence
This research draws from more than 100 inquiries with Gartner clients and numerous vendor
briefings.

Note 1
Representative Vendor Selection
Gartner estimates that the number of providers meeting the Gartner definition exceeds 100. The
representative providers included in this Market Guide were selected from providers headquartered
in the three major regions that Gartner clients are showing an interest for SIP trunking services in.
These are also providers that are attracting general interest (based on searches on gartner.com and
in client inquiries).

Note 2
Gartner’s Market Coverage
This Market Guide is the second Market Guide for SIP trunking by Gartner, and focuses on the
market definition, rationale for the market and market dynamics.

Document Revision History

Market Guide for Global SIP Trunking Services - 14 January 2019

Recommended by the Authors

Global SIP Trunking Services Will Save Money, but Choose Providers With Care
Market Guide for Communications Platform as a Service

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 14/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.
Network Service Price Trends: What You Need to Know to Save Money on Your Next Contract
Negotiation

Recommended For You

Critical Capabilities for Managed Mobility Services, Global
Gartner Peer Insights ‘Voice of the Customer’: CDN Services
Magic Quadrant for Network Services, Global
Global SIP Trunking Services Will Save Money, but Choose Providers With Care
Magic Quadrant for Managed Mobility Services, Global

This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.

© 2020 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc.
and its affiliates. This publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner's prior
written permission. It consists of the opinions of Gartner's research organization, which should not be construed
as statements of fact. While the information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources
believed to be reliable, Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such
information. Although Gartner research may address legal and financial issues, Gartner does not provide legal or
investment advice and its research should not be construed or used as such. Your access and use of this
publication are governed by Gartner’s Usage Policy. Gartner prides itself on its reputation for independence and
objectivity. Its research is produced independently by its research organization without input or influence from
any third party. For further information, see "Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity."

About Gartner Careers Newsroom Policies Privacy Policy Contact Us Site Index Help Get the App

© 2020 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All rights reserved.

Gartner, Inc. | 719705

Page 15/15
This research note is restricted to the personal use of edson.brandi@stone.com.br.