{"id":31662,"date":"2025-11-25T18:11:01","date_gmt":"2025-11-25T18:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.intercom.com\/blog\/?p=31662"},"modified":"2025-11-26T09:37:23","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T09:37:23","slug":"the-new-cx-score-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.intercom.com\/blog\/the-new-cx-score-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"More context, more confidence: The new CX Score explained"},"content":{"rendered":"

Customer expectations have never been higher. <\/span><\/p>\n

People expect fast, accurate, and effortless support, every time. And across industries, from ecommerce to financial services to healthcare, customer experience has become one of the most strategic levers for achieving durable competitive advantage.<\/p>\n

But you can\u2019t improve what you can\u2019t see. And for years, most support organizations have been making decisions based on only a tiny slice of their customer interactions, captured through surveys that reach only the most motivated (or frustrated) voices.<\/span><\/p>\n

We created CX Score to change that.<\/strong><\/p>\n

CX Score gives teams a complete view of the customer experience across <\/span>every<\/span><\/i> meaningful conversation \u2013 no CSAT or NPS surveys required.<\/span><\/p>\n

After launching CX score, we saw that many teams immediately used it to understand performance trends, highlight experience issues, and surface gaps across support operations.<\/span><\/p>\n

As adoption grew, new opportunities emerged. CX leaders found value from CX Score \u2013 but they also wanted the model to capture more nuance and identify the specific drivers leading to negative or positive scores, giving them clearer direction on where to focus.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s what we\u2019ve built into the latest iteration of CX Score. If you\u2019ve been using CX Score for a while and have noticed it shift recently, that\u2019s an expected evolution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A recent shift in scores does <\/span>not<\/b> mean your support quality has dipped or that Fin or your team is performing worse than before \u2013 this one time shift reflects a more advanced, more complete model that understands customer experience more deeply with even greater coverage.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Why CX Score needed to evolve<\/b><\/h2>\n

In the initial release, CX Score evaluated each conversation using a combination of sentiment, resolution, and support quality signals. It provided strong early insight and surfaced experience trends that were previously invisible.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As we analyzed real-world conversations across thousands of companies, it became clear that even these combined signals didn\u2019t fully capture the nuance of how customers actually experience support \u2013 especially in moments where the outcome was technically correct, but the path to get there involved unnecessary friction, repeated explanations, or unresolved product limitations.<\/span><\/p>\n

This evolution of CX Score builds on that foundation. It incorporates deeper contextual understanding of the entire interaction, creating a more complete and accurate reflection of the customer experience.<\/span><\/p>\n

How CX Score has evolved: Providing deeper, more actionable insights<\/b><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

We expanded the CX Score evaluation criteria<\/span><\/h3>\n

CX Score now looks beyond just <\/span>how<\/span><\/i> your team replied, and into the broader context of the customer\u2019s experience \u2013 including reasons that may be outside your support team\u2019s direct control but still influence how your customers feel.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Alongside core support quality signals, we\u2019ve introduced several new dimensions that capture what customers are actually reacting to:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Reason<\/b><\/td>\nWhat it measures<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Answer quality (Fin)<\/b><\/td>\nHow well Fin answered the customer\u2019s queries \u2013 were responses clear, accurate, and able to resolve the issue without contradiction or repeated clarification?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Answer quality (Teammate)<\/b><\/td>\nHow well a human teammate answered the customer\u2019s queries, using the same criteria: clarity, accuracy, and resolution without contradiction or repeated clarification.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Customer effort<\/b><\/td>\nHow much effort the customer had to put in to get help (e.g. repeating themselves, multiple handovers, chasing follow-ups).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Strong emotion<\/b><\/td>\nWhether the customer expressed strong positive or negative emotions (e.g. joy, gratitude, frustration, anger).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Product\/Service feedback<\/b><\/td>\nWhether the customer praised or criticized the product (e.g. features, bugs, design gaps, etc.) or the service (e.g. delivery, reliability, onboarding, performance, etc.).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Policy feedback<\/b><\/td>\nWhether the customer praised or criticized a company policy (e.g. refunds, returns, account rules, limits, eligibility, etc.).<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Broader coverage: more of your support volume now contributes to CX Score<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Previously, some conversations couldn\u2019t be scored reliably, especially short, simple, or low-context exchanges \u2013 which meant your CX Score was based on only a subset of your total support volume.<\/span><\/p>\n

With this update, CX Score now uses a wider set of criteria to evaluate each interaction. That means:<\/span><\/p>\n