Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Teams vs Polycom RealPresence Clariti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Teams
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
166
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Social Software (1st)
Polycom RealPresence Clariti
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Virtual Meetings category, the mindshare of Microsoft Teams is 3.1%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polycom RealPresence Clariti is 1.4%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Virtual Meetings
 

Featured Reviews

Arun Srivastav - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless presentation and collaboration enhance organizational productivity
There are three main areas for improvement: Firstly, AI capabilities should be integrated into Microsoft Teams to provide better transcript services and offer multiple language support. Secondly, it should allow participants to remain visible during presentations, enhancing interaction. Lastly, it needs broader integration capabilities with other products, like Salesforce ( /vendors/salesforce ), which is currently limited.
Sreejith Thulasidas - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides video calling facilities with good video and audio clarity
Polycom RealPresence Clariti is very bad when moving towards the cloud. I think that Microsoft Teams and Zoom have already taken over the market. Polycom is currently looking into more end devices than server components and infrastructure. A cloud version would have been better, but that will not be feasible for Polycom now. It would have been helpful to have a cloud version during the migration stages, but now the time has gone. As a company, it's better for Polycom to look into the video conferencing devices rather than the infrastructure. Earlier, one of the advantages was that the infrastructure was very much open, and it was easy to integrate the tool with other platforms like Cisco. That is not the scenario now, and Polycom should concentrate on the endpoint hardware devices.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features of Microsoft Teams are scheduling a meeting and integration with other Microsoft services like SharePoint and OneDrive."
"The solution is perfect and works pretty well. It gets your streaming and helps to get your calls. I like it a lot."
"It is easy to share files online in real time with Microsoft Teams."
"Integration with document management capabilities and video conferencing."
"You can ping, chat, and call someone, and at the same time, on the next tab, you can see all the documents related to what someone is referring to."
"All of the solution's features are useful since we use it for saving data, chatting, meeting, and all such purposes."
"The corporate world widely accepts the solution for virtual meetings. Also, it has good availability."
"The chat functionality is the solution's most valuable feature."
"It does a good job of integrating with other software."
"Some proprietary Polycom features include speaker tracking, acoustic fencing, noise cancellation, active noise cancellation, and noise cancellation AI."
"I find the ability to follow the calls, the call flow, the ability to look at the history, and more on the fault-finding tools to be valuable."
"The most valuable feature is its integration with solutions like Zoom and Teams for endpoints. The picture quality is high, and the conference sessions are stable."
"It's on-prem, which is great."
 

Cons

"They should include AI features in the solution."
"The solution needs to improve the cell phone version. I also have issues in copying the links in the conversation."
"They should allow switching between windows in a Teams meeting."
"The setup of Microsoft Teams is not very easy, with occasional issues in driver installation and browser compatibility."
"The solution should offer a way for people to virtually raise their hands in a meeting so that everyone can speak. There's a user voice for this already, but it would help if there was some sort of visual cue as well."
"Microsoft Teams could log in faster."
"SharePoint was more robust and customizable earlier."
"Sometimes, I find the network quality is not very good with low bandwidth."
"The customer needs this platform to be a little bit more customized."
"The only issue we have is with some of the bridging stuff, particularly with respect to DTMF and outgoing calls."
"Could have a wider range of use cases."
"Polycom RealPresence Clariti is very bad when moving towards the cloud."
"The most valuable feature is its integration with solutions like Zoom and Teams for endpoints. The picture quality is high, and the conference sessions are stable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is expensive."
"The solution's cost is high."
"The solution's pricing is fair enough and not expensive. Teams' licensing costs are yearly. However, Zoom is less expensive."
"The solution's pricing is reasonable and I would rate it an eight out of ten."
"If you have clients who do not have a computer and are joining with their phones it's an additional fee of $5.00 per user."
"The product is expensive, and I rate its pricing a ten out of ten."
"I rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. Its pricing is fixed."
"The pricing for Teams is very competitive."
"Polycom RealPresence Clariti is definitely more expensive than others in the market because of its high quality."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Virtual Meetings solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
66%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
3%
Computer Software Company
3%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Microsoft Teams?
The most valuable feature of Microsoft Teams for us is the ability to share files from OneDrive seamlessly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Teams?
Microsoft Teams comes with Office 365 ( /products/office-365-reviews ) licenses like E3, but there are options for those who prefer not to pay for Teams by using alternative products like Slack ( /...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Teams?
The biggest issue with Microsoft Teams is switching identities, especially when communicating with external organizations. Users often don't know they have messages from another company unless they...
What needs improvement with Polycom RealPresence Clariti?
They are discontinuing the product and they are moving over to Pexip. The only issue we have is with some of the bridging stuff, particularly with respect to DTMF and outgoing calls. That's our big...
What is your primary use case for Polycom RealPresence Clariti?
We use it both nationally and internationally with our partners, however, it's used in a closed environment.
What advice do you have for others considering Polycom RealPresence Clariti?
I would recommend it, however, it depends on the environment. We have a lot of users but not a lot of usage, so the price model is really good for that environment. Overall, I would give it a nine ...
 

Also Known As

MS Teams
RealPresence Clariti, Clariti
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Honeywll, AIRFRANCE, AccuWeather, Lilly
Baptist Health Corbin, North Carolina Central University
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Teams vs. Polycom RealPresence Clariti and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.