Teleperformance is the largest customer experience outsourcer in the world, and for a large share of buyers it is the right answer. This page is for the rest: programs that are too small, too specialised or too North American to be a priority account there, and the buyers who want a named team rather than a global delivery network.
Most searches for a Teleperformance alternative come from one of three places. A procurement team has a renewal coming up and wants a credible second bid. An operations lead has a program of a few dozen seats that is not getting the attention a two-thousand-seat account gets. Or a company is buying outsourced support for the first time, has heard the biggest name, and wants to know who else is in the room.
Those are different problems and they point at different providers. The list below is organised around that: who each provider is genuinely best for, where its footprint is, what size of program it is built to run, and what you should look at hard before you sign.
Disclosure: apart from Teleperformance, the providers compared below are brands of the Global Empire Corporation group. Each entry is written in the same terms, and the "consider" column applies to our own brands as much as to the incumbent. Last reviewed September 2026; footprints and offerings change, so confirm current details with each provider before shortlisting.
What Teleperformance is, and what it is built for
Teleperformance is headquartered in France and, following its combination with Majorel, operates the largest customer experience delivery network in the industry, spanning roughly a hundred countries and a very wide range of languages. It runs programs for the largest brands in technology, financial services, healthcare, travel, retail and government, and it has invested heavily in analytics, automation and trust-and-safety work alongside voice and digital support.
That scale is the reason to choose it and the reason to look elsewhere. If your program needs thirty languages, follow-the-sun coverage across four continents and a partner that can absorb a thousand seats in a quarter, very few providers can match it. If your program is two hundred seats in one language on one continent, you are buying a global network you will not use, and you will be one of a great many accounts competing for the same account-management attention.
How we compared them
- Best for is the kind of buyer and program each provider visibly leads with in its own material and case work, not a rating.
- Footprint is where the provider says it delivers from. We have not claimed sites a provider does not claim for itself.
- Typical fit is the program size and shape each provider is structured to run well. It is a judgement, and it is the column to challenge in a discovery call.
- Consider is the honest trade-off, and it is written for our own brands as well as for the incumbent.
- We have deliberately left out pricing, headcount, revenue and review scores. They date quickly and a comparison page is only useful if it is accurate.
Teleperformance alternatives at a glance
Eight providers, including the incumbent and including us. Read the table as a way to cut the list to three, then run the evaluation described further down.
| Provider | Best for | Footprint | Typical fit | Consider |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teleperformance | Global programs needing many languages and very large seat counts | Around a hundred countries; onshore, nearshore and offshore | Enterprise programs in the hundreds to thousands of seats | Mid-sized programs compete with far larger accounts for attention |
| Global Empire Corporation (this site) | Mid-market and regulated programs that want a named team and North American ownership | Head offices in Edmonton, Alberta and Scottsdale, Arizona; 24/7; English, Spanish and French | Inbound and outbound programs from a few seats to a few hundred | Not the answer for thirty languages or a thousand seats in a quarter |
| Contact Center USA | Regulated and customer-sensitive programs that must stay entirely onshore | Fully US-based delivery | Mid-sized programs in healthcare, legal, financial services and government | Onshore economics; not the choice when cost per seat is the deciding factor |
| Canada Contact Centre | Canadian enterprises and any program that needs English and French from one team | Canadian operations; bilingual English/French | Enterprise and mid-market programs in finance, telecom, healthcare, retail, e-commerce and logistics | Built for the Canadian market first; confirm fit for programs with no Canadian component |
| Call Center Communications | US brands wanting near-shore economics with full time-zone overlap | Canadian operations serving US and Canadian brands | Inbound and outbound programs in telecom, banking, healthcare, retail and travel | Near-shore rather than offshore; the saving is real but smaller than an offshore move |
| Customer Communications Corp | Brands that need one consistent voice across phone, chat, email and digital | US-based | Omnichannel programs in healthcare, legal, financial services and government | Strongest where channel consistency and QA are the brief; a voice-only program uses less of it |
| Business Process Outsourcing | Complex, high-volume customer journeys that need analytics behind the operation | US-based | High-volume enterprise CX in retail, finance, healthcare and technology | An enterprise-shaped offer; small programs will not use the analytics layer |
| Call Center Staffing | Seasonal spikes, launches and rapid growth without a full outsourcing commitment | US-based | Retail, e-commerce and support operations needing short-term surge or long-term augmentation | A staffing model, not a managed program; you keep the management and the systems |
Reviewed September 2026. Public information only; no pricing, ratings or headcounts, because those are the facts most likely to be wrong by the time you read this.
The alternatives, one at a time
Teleperformance
The incumbent on this page, and the benchmark the rest are measured against. Teleperformance leads with breadth: language coverage, geographic reach, a mature analytics and automation practice, and the ability to stand up very large programs quickly. Its client base is dominated by global brands with multi-region support requirements.
The trade-off is structural rather than a fault. A provider organised around thousand-seat accounts allocates its best people to thousand-seat accounts. A program of fifty or a hundred seats is real revenue but not strategic revenue, and buyers at that size regularly report that the sales experience and the delivery experience were run by different organisations.
Best for: Global programs needing many languages and very large seat counts
Consider: Mid-sized programs compete with far larger accounts for attention
Global Empire Corporation (this site)
Website: www.globalempire.com. Global Empire Corporation has run full inbound and outbound operations since 1999 — customer care, technical support, sales and lead generation — built around each client's compliance requirements and growth plan rather than a one-size-fits-all seat model. Programs scale from a focused campaign team to a multi-channel operation across voice, chat and email, and the industries it leads with are healthcare, finance, insurance, real estate and professional services.
The honest limits are the ones the description implies. There is no hundred-country network and no claim of one. A program that needs a dozen languages across four continents belongs with the incumbent. A program that needs North American time zones, a small number of languages, a compliant footprint and an account manager whose name the client knows belongs here, and the proposal form is the fastest way to test the fit.
Best for: Mid-market and regulated programs that want a named team and North American ownership
Consider: Not the answer for thirty languages or a thousand seats in a quarter
Contact Center USA
Website: contactcenterusa.com. Contact Center USA provides fully US-based call center services for organizations that put quality assurance, compliance and brand protection ahead of delivery cost. The onshore model suits industries where accent, cultural fluency and data jurisdiction are part of the requirement rather than a preference: a caller to a bank, a clinic or a public agency is talking to an agent in the same country and under the same law.
The trade-off is the one onshore delivery always carries. If the program is being re-procured to reduce cost per seat, a fully domestic provider is competing on a different axis and should be evaluated on quality, compliance and attrition rather than on rate.
Best for: Regulated and customer-sensitive programs that must stay entirely onshore
Consider: Onshore economics; not the choice when cost per seat is the deciding factor
Canada Contact Centre
Website: canadacontactcentre.com. Canada Contact Centre builds scalable contact center and outsourcing programs for the Canadian market: bilingual English and French delivery, data handling designed around Canadian federal and provincial privacy law, and multichannel programs for enterprises that need engagement and service delivery to improve together. For a Canadian buyer leaving a global provider, it removes the explanation step — the provider already understands the language obligations and the privacy regime.
Its centre of gravity is Canada. A US-only program with no French requirement and no Canadian data-residency consideration gains less from it than from the onshore US or near-shore options on this list.
Best for: Canadian enterprises and any program that needs English and French from one team
Consider: Built for the Canadian market first; confirm fit for programs with no Canadian component
Call Center Communications
Website: callcentercommunications.com. Call Center Communications delivers inbound and outbound programs from Canadian operations, which gives US brands near-shore coverage with cultural alignment, strong English fluency and full time-zone overlap at operating economics that compare well with onshore US delivery. It is the answer for a buyer who wants to leave a global provider's offshore sites without paying onshore US rates.
What it is not is an offshore cost play. A program whose only objective is the lowest possible rate will find larger savings further afield, at the cost of the alignment and overlap that make near-shore work.
Best for: US brands wanting near-shore economics with full time-zone overlap
Consider: Near-shore rather than offshore; the saving is real but smaller than an offshore move
Customer Communications Corp
Website: customercommunicationscorp.com. Customer Communications Corp delivers scalable omnichannel support for businesses that want brand-aligned service to be identical whether the customer calls, chats, emails or messages. Quality assurance is treated as a core discipline rather than a reporting line, which is what makes voice-to-digital consistency achievable in practice, and its compliance depth suits regulated sectors.
A single-channel, high-volume voice queue gets a capable provider here but not the differentiator. It earns its place on the shortlist when the buyer's frustration with the incumbent is inconsistency between channels.
Best for: Brands that need one consistent voice across phone, chat, email and digital
Consider: Strongest where channel consistency and QA are the brief; a voice-only program uses less of it
Business Process Outsourcing
Website: businessprocessoutsourcing.info. Business Process Outsourcing supports brands with complex, high-volume interaction needs by pairing omnichannel contact center delivery with analytics and performance optimisation across the customer journey. It is the closest like-for-like alternative on this list for a buyer whose reason for leaving the incumbent is not scale but the feeling that the operation is being run rather than improved.
The analytics-led model earns its keep at volume. A program of a few dozen seats with a stable, simple contact mix will pay for capability it does not exercise.
Best for: Complex, high-volume customer journeys that need analytics behind the operation
Consider: An enterprise-shaped offer; small programs will not use the analytics layer
Call Center Staffing
Website: callcenterstaffing.net. Call Center Staffing deploys trained agents quickly for companies facing seasonal peaks, product launches or growth that has outrun hiring. The staffing-first model gives an operations leader surge capacity or workforce augmentation inside their own operation, without the transition, the systems change or the contractual commitment a full outsourcing move requires.
That is also the boundary. It is the right alternative for a buyer who wants to keep running the operation and simply needs more trained people in it. A buyer who wants to hand the operation over, with service levels and governance attached, is describing the managed providers above.
Best for: Seasonal spikes, launches and rapid growth without a full outsourcing commitment
Consider: A staffing model, not a managed program; you keep the management and the systems
When staying with Teleperformance is the right call
A comparison page that never recommends the incumbent is not a comparison page. Stay if any of the following describe your program.
- You genuinely use the network. Multi-continent, many-language programs with follow-the-sun coverage are what the largest providers are built for, and a smaller provider will have to subcontract to match it.
- Your problem is a site, not the provider. One underperforming delivery centre is a conversation about moving the work within the provider, not about re-procuring. Re-procurement costs months and a transition; a site change costs a meeting.
- Your contract has real leverage left in it. A renewal is the moment a large provider pays attention. If the account has been neglected, say so at renewal, in writing, with a credible second bid on the table. That second bid can be any provider on this page.
- Your scale is about to change. If you expect to triple in eighteen months, buy for where you are going. Moving a program twice is worse than being under-attended once.
How to run the comparison so it holds up
Cut the list to three using the table, then make every provider price and staff the same program. The tool for that is a request for proposal that specifies volumes by interval, channels, languages, hours, the systems agents will work in, the service levels and how they will be reported. Our call center RFP guide sets out what belongs in it, and the staffing calculator will give you the seat count a given volume and service level actually implies, so you can check every bid's staffing assumptions against the same arithmetic.
Then ask each of the three the questions that separate a sales process from a delivery relationship: who runs the program after signature and how many other accounts they hold; what happens in month three when a script change is needed; which site the work will be in and what the exit terms are if that site underperforms; and what the transition plan looks like, in weeks, with named owners. The guide to choosing a BPO partner covers the rest of the selection process, and the onshore, nearshore and offshore comparison will help if delivery location is part of why you are leaving.
Leaving a different incumbent? The same eight providers are compared against TELUS International, Concentrix, Foundever, Alorica, TTEC, TaskUs, Sutherland, IBEX and IntouchCX.
If you are comparing answering-desk providers for a small business rather than enterprise BPO, this is the wrong page: see the virtual receptionist and answering service comparison instead.
Frequently asked questions
Is a smaller provider riskier than Teleperformance?
It is a different risk, not a larger one. A global provider's risk is attention: a mid-sized program can be well run and still be nobody's priority. A smaller provider's risk is capacity: it must be able to staff your peaks and survive losing a large client. Test both directly. Ask the global provider who runs your account and how many others they hold; ask the smaller provider for its largest program, its ramp history and its business continuity arrangements.
How long does it take to move a program from one BPO to another?
For a straightforward inbound program, a transition of eight to twelve weeks from signature to full cutover is realistic: knowledge transfer, recruitment and training, systems access, a parallel-running period and a staged migration of traffic. Regulated work, deep integrations and multilingual queues take longer. The single biggest predictor of a clean transition is whether the outgoing provider is contractually obliged to cooperate, so read your exit clauses before you start.
Can we split a program between Teleperformance and an alternative?
Yes, and it is often the safest path. Keeping the incumbent on the largest, most stable queue while moving a defined slice — one language, one region, one product line — to a second provider gives you a live comparison on real traffic, keeps leverage at renewal, and reduces the scale of any transition. It costs some management overhead and requires both providers to accept shared reporting, which the RFP should specify.
Why are there no prices on this page?
Because none of the numbers would be true for your program. Outsourcing pricing depends on volumes, hours, languages, delivery location, the complexity of the work and the service levels attached, and every provider on this page will quote differently for the same brief. Publishing indicative rates would mislead more readers than it helped. What we can do is price your actual program, which is what the form above is for.
Does Global Empire compete with Teleperformance directly?
On some programs, yes; on many, no. We do not bid on thousand-seat, multi-continent programs and we would not be the right choice for them. We do compete, and win, on North American programs from a few seats to a few hundred where the buyer wants a named team, three languages, round-the-clock coverage and a provider for whom the account matters. If that is your program, we are a fair comparison; if it is not, the top of the list is where you should be looking.