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

ON24 Platform vs TeamViewer Business comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 31, 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

ON24 Platform
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Virtual Events Platforms (6th)
TeamViewer Business
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
87
Ranking in other categories
Remote Access (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Virtual Meetings category, the mindshare of ON24 Platform is 1.4%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TeamViewer Business is 6.8%, down from 7.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Virtual Meetings
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1337886 - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy setup and an a la carte pricing model
The solution needs a more modern interface. One of our biggest complaints is that we don't have the ability to dynamically push our interface to participants. Adobe Connect is an older technology, but it allows us to push our own layout and design to participants. One of the solution's strengths is that it's web-only but that is also a weakness. It is not a software solution but is browser-based which has its advantages and disadvantages. Zoom has become such a force that its ease of use surpasses ON24.
Heiko Humpert - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows an ease of access to various systems and has a straightforward setup process
The product allows easy access to any system in case of any issues We cannot see the number of monitors working on the system simultaneously. It becomes complicated to switch from one monitor to another for different windows. The product's stability depends on the network's stability in our…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution works well with third-party integrations."
"Friendly user interface and simple navigation."
"I like that it helped a lot, even with low bandwidth network connectivity. For example, while I was traveling, sometimes there were requirements for me to join a TeamViewer session and provide technical support. I was able to do that without much of an issue. It is also a secure solution."
"TeamViewer has a good interface."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had a problem with it."
"Our computers are spread amongst six physical locations. TeamViewer reduces the need to travel to those offices to help staff."
"The most valuable features of TeamViewer are the high performance and it is not complicated to use, neither for me nor for the one I'm helping."
"It saves trips to customer sites, which saves time. I am able to get in there remotely and fix things."
"The most valuable features of I use TeamViewer are the ease of access and frequent updates."
"It is fairly feature-rich and stable."
 

Cons

"Bandwidth optimization could be increased."
"The solution needs a more modern interface."
"This solution could be improved by offering more flexibility in terms of usage."
"The installation and the update agent could improve."
"We'd like to be able to work from mobile to desktop and vice versa. We'd like more mobility."
"Every now and then you'll get a silent crash and you relaunch the application. But it happens no more than with anything else in the Windows environment."
"It needs to have proper authentication. I would like to see in-depth integration with Google and Microsoft products, for example. It would be nice to have a cell phone version as well."
"The business interface is clunky and not well-documented."
"I didn't like the fact that you had to install a client for remote support. If you didn't install the client, you were very limited in terms of what you could do. For a whole enterprise, it is just not an easy task to install a client on everything. Even if you're using SCCM, it is an undertaking. For transient clients that you don't necessarily support a hundred percent of the time, it would be nice to be able to connect to them and support their issues without having to install something on their machines. In my previous company, we were looking at this solution as being a collaborative tool for the enterprise in terms of video conferencing, calling, and scheduling. They were working on bringing a bunch of products together to make their suite a little more integrated, but it really wasn't at the point where we wanted it to be in terms of integration. We looked at it, reviewed it, and tested it out a bit. We then decided to go with Microsoft Teams. It has the clunkiness of having separate modules that aren't totally integrated. There are different methods for doing different things, which makes it a little bit more complicated. There should be the same way whether you are doing remote support or just calls."
"I would like it if the trial version of TeamViewer allowed you to have a connection for much longer."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We paid $1,800 for five webinars, which is the standard fee. If you require support there is a $300 additional fee, extra attendees is an additional fee, integration is an additional fee, etc. All these extras could add on another $2,500 which was not in our budget."
"We have a corporate license. The maximum amount number of users changes based on the amount you pay. E.g., with our license, there is a maximum amount of users who can use the solution at the same time (10 users)."
"...it will cost you $1,500 to $1,600 a year, but when I think of how much work I do through TeamViewer..."
"The cost of the licenses depends on how you buy them. They just had a buy one get one free deal going, and they do that every once in a while. Where you buy one license, and they will give you the second one free, or you can try to get discounts. Most of our licenses that we have we tried to do something like that just to save some money."
"There is a free and paid version of this solution. I am currently using the free version."
"TeamViewer is very pricey. You have to sign up for a yearly subscription."
"We have an annual subscription that is just under $1,900 with no additional costs. We get these promotions about upgrades and stuff like that, but we haven't had a need to add more seats. Users can also use TeamViewer for home use with a non-commercial free license."
"I used the free version of TeamViewer."
"The price of the license could be less expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Virtual Meetings solutions are best for your needs.
865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
6%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Should I choose Teamviewer Tensor over the regular Teamviewer?
The number one advantage of TeamViewer for me is its ease of use, specifically as it relates to the client side. By far, one of its best features is the remote access it provides. I can control som...
What do you like most about TeamViewer?
It is easy to use and has a pretty good UI.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TeamViewer?
The tool's price is a problem because TeamViewer wants users to sign up, and I feel most of the products want their users to do the same. TeamViewer is very pricey. You have to sign up for a yearly...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, Zendesk, Salesforce, Linkedin, Intel
Porsche Informatik, Philips, DHL, Intel, Motorola, Microsoft, IBM, Siemens, Fujitsu, American Red Cross
Find out what your peers are saying about ON24 Platform vs. TeamViewer Business and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.