Microsoft Teams Reviews

We use this solution for communication internally and with our outside customers.

It is on cloud, and we are installing the desktop version on our workstations. There are also cases that we are using the cloud, the web edition, because you can login to your account from any workstation.

It is deployed across our whole organization, so we are multinational. Currently, I'm in the Philippines, but we also have our team members in Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia. Everyone is using Teams, and we're communicating using Teams.

I think it has helped me organize my day-to-day activities. It has also helped me to align with the schedule of my colleagues and other partners because there's a feature where we can see the schedule of other Team members.

It is easy to send some calendar invites to have a research session with our customer.

There's a feature that can send a notification to the Team's channel, but I think there's no way to have it escalated.

I have been using this solution since December 2020.

It's stable, but there have been times when I needed to login again, probably because of my internet connection.

It's scalable.

We have also used Viber, but it's not the best communication solution. We have also used ServiceNow for ticketing and Zoom.

Setup was straightforward. You just need to sign in, and you can use it right away. Internally, we advised everyone to install Teams on their workstation after they received their service machines.

Everything took just a couple of minutes. You need to download a couple of megabytes and install it. Everything will be done in less than 30 minutes, including the sign in.

It was done in-house. We did not have an indicated person for that. Everyone knows that they're using Teams and they install it by themselves. Most of the time, there is no help needed to install Teams.

From Teams alone, I think we are looking at it as the complete package, including the subscription of Microsoft Word and SharePoint. So overall, I think it is a good investment.

It is affordable because it also includes the licenses on Microsoft Word, Microsoft Office and SharePoint. The subscription is already covered with the $10 per month subscription.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. 

The implementation is straightforward. You just need to validate Teams, and the product certificate is good for the company using it versus the other service operating from other providers. The solution is good.

We use Microsoft Teams for everything, it's a corporate solution for online meetings, sharing information, and collaboration.

It has facilitated interaction with our colleagues and with clients. In addition, we can also have better access to information

When comparing similar solutions, there aren't many differences between them, but the best feature I would highlight is the quality and stability of their platform.

It is easy to use.

Because many companies use a variety of tools, the main feature could be to integrate the ability to participate in any meeting regardless of the platform they are using. For example, if you are invited to a Google Meet session, you should be able to join it without the need of having installed the specific client to attend that meeting.

It would be the best opportunity to create an abstract of which online collaboration tools are being used to avoid installing Zoom, Teams, or WebEx. It's currently the best time to try something new; I know it's technically difficult or perhaps impossible, but that should be a good starting point. Allowing you to participate in the conference to which you have been invited regardless of the platform on which it is hosted would be beneficial.

< 3 years (before we were using Skype for Business)

One of Microsoft Teams' most valuable features is its stability.

In terms of scalability, I don't have that information. We are a company with more than  130,000 employees. Even for large events, Teams  works flawlessly. I don't believe there are any scalability issues.

We have been using allways Microsoft Unified Collaboration solution. 

Pricing is an area where I lack visibility.

This selection is done at company level. I have no influence on the selection.

I strongly recommend Microsoft Teams to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Microsoft Teams a nine out of ten.

We use Microsoft Teams in venture employment and internally we use it on a daily basis to communicate with offices, departments, and anything related to keeping the communication within the organization.

It's a very simple software that's very easy to understand.

There are a couple of faulty areas that need improvement. The interface could be a little bit more user-friendly. 

When you click on files, pictures, or PDFs when someone sends them to you on Teams, they don't always appear on the system; you have to go back and click again. To be able to see pictures and documents for the first time is something that needs to be improved.

One thing I would like to be able to do is ping more conversations than I currently can. We can currently only ping 15, but I'd like to see new features that allow for 20 or 25 pings; that would be good.

I have been working with Microsoft Teams for a couple of years.

I believe that we are working with the latest version.

It is deployed within the organization.

Microsoft Teams is a stable solution.

This solution is used by almost everyone in our organization. I would say there are more than 2,500 users.

I once contacted technical support because I needed to change something I didn't have permission to change. That was the only reason I needed to contact them; otherwise, there is no reason.

Out of five, I would rate them a five.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

My understanding is that there are licensing fees, but I'm not sure how much they might be.

I would rate Microsoft Teams a nine out of ten because it is software that many people are familiar with. For example, if you have someone who needs to communicate with Teams, they will have the necessary software. There is a limited amount of information on both sides. It's not a lot of information to confuse you; it's straight to the point. It's also very good and easy to use.

We primarily use the solution for team conversations.

For example, I use it for filing team documents, although, for individual notes and things of that nature, I might use OneNote. I'm using it more and more now for video conferencing within the organization. I haven't really used it too much outside of the organization, although my plan is to use it outside of the company in the near future.

Began using for team documents and plans.  

Teams provides a strong capability to consolidate all collaborative capabilities related to a team in one platform.  This is especially important for project teams where the team members are spread across geographic locations and time zones. 
Incorporates improve and new collaborative tools such as Lists, Plans, Tasks into the tool that integrate into Outlook for notification and response to the assignements.  These capabilities are truly game changing in project management and delivery in the COVID-19 world

In the past three months of continuous improvements the tools have improved and simplified collaborative efforts dramatically

This solution is great for ad hoc video conferencing. It's so easy to start a meeting. We're finding more and more uses for the Teams video conferencing features. I'll be honest, it's a bit of a challenge for people to use the video aspect. The tendency for people is to not turn on their camera because they don't like the way they look or they're not able to sit in their pajamas during meetings if there's video involved. However, it's been a game-changer since the pandemic as it allows us to keep in touch with our teams remotely.

Microsoft has delivered integrated tools and collaborative capabilities that continue to strengthen and bring great value to Teams.  This positions Teams as the collaborative tool that will soon become the standard in the market for capabilities.  The document and plans/assignment improvements are game changes from a simplicity and functionality perspective.

I really like the video conferencing, and the reason is because of the simplicity of scheduling and using the software. Since I'm using Outlook for my email and calendar management, and it's connected with everything. It's just a click of a button to schedule a meeting, and then, to activate or to start the meeting, it's just another click of a button. Everything is streamlined and simple. 

The seamless integration and easy coordination with mobile devices is a wonderful aspect of the solution. It's great that, even if I'm not at my desk, I can still attend the Teams video conference and interact in the same way that I would if I were at my desktop.

There's an option to blur the background or to completely change your background. That's very helpful as we now use the solution to replace stand-up meetings. It removes background distractions for other users and allows participants to have a bit of privacy.

I have a regular meeting with a couple of people on my team, and normally, we would meet at somebody's desk or in an office or in the conference room. With Teams, we can all attend, and all see each other and we can have the same outcome as we would if we were all in the same room. While digital meetings as opposed to in-person meetings takes a bit of time to get used to, the learning curve is short because of the seamless integration.

What would really help is extending the time that you're active on the mobile device because I can't find a way in Teams to restart the app automatically. For instance, in Teams, we use it as an organization for instant messaging and for text messaging. The problem is if I restart my mobile device, I have to remember to restart Teams in order to get the text messages on my device. It's not automatic.

The solution should standardize the options across platforms. What I mean by that is, sometimes, on the mobile, there are not the same options and set up features and functions as are available on the web or on the desktop app. Everything should have the exact same functionality, otherwise, it's difficult if some people are on mobile and others are on desktop.

I've been using the solution for year now.

I haven't run into a problem with stability and I have not experienced any crashes, bugs, or glitches in the Teams App. You must remember this is a web app though.  Any performance or stability issues that I have experienced were related to Internet service issues and not the Teams App.

I haven't run into a problem with the scalability of the solution. I've used it at my last job with teams that are as small as 15 people and the thing that's nice about it is that I can be part of a dozen teams and it easily maintains the communication to all the teams separately so conversations stay organized.

We're business consultants, and, right now, there are about a dozen of us using it. The consultants are located in different geographic areas of the US, and there are even people working in India that are using Teams. Geographically, the solution expands to make communication possible anywhere.

The organization I work with now, as I understand it, has plans for increasing usage. Right now, it's rather limited in terms of who is using it. Maybe 20% of the people on staff are and there's about a hundred people on staff in total. 20% of those people using Teams in a relatively limited way. Frankly, I'm trying to encourage people to use Teams and drop other video conferencing tools.

I don't know how technical support is, to tell the truth. The type of technical troubleshooting I use for Teams is basically just seeking answers on the internet. I typically Google something if I don't understand an aspect of the solution.  There are community boards and that sort of thing. It's worked out pretty well for me. I've never had a crash or a bug though, so I've never had to reach out to technical support to get them to get me back online or to sort out an issue of that nature.

We haven't used a different solution previously. This is the first video conferencing suite we've adopted in the company.

The initial setup is web-based in terms of the style of set up and is very straight forward. I use the web-based setup because I wanted my experience to be the same no matter what device I use. As an example, I can use my work laptop, or my Chromebook or tablet and I have the capabilities to see and interact in the same way.

There's an initial challenge though because if people that have the app have it installed on their laptop, for instance, and they're running an application on their device, it has a different look and feel compared to what's on the web version.

We have one person to deploy and maintain the solution. It's actually a part-time role. It's one of the consultants who maintain it as part of his other duties. He's in charge of desktop devices and desktop applications. 

When a new person needs to be added, he just sets up the laptop and gets everything ready. He also maintains the license. With Microsoft 365, it's pretty straightforward. I just access the Office app or service and it installs directly. I may access the app through the cloud anyhow, so there's really no maintenance to do.

We have an employee in house that maintains the licensing, however, we install the solution ourselves for the most part.

I don't handle the payments for the service. It's not my department.

We're using the latest version of the solution. We just get the solution from the cloud, so it's always the most up-to-date option.

I've noticed, since the pandemic, that, as of maybe three or four months ago, Teams was much more widely accepted in Europe than in North America. I believe this is starting to change.  Recently though (late 2020) this has changed and especially since the roll-out over the summer and fall of improvements in collaborative document, planning and tracking capabilities.

I would recommend marketing the tool to people by showing demos of the capabilities for people and actual use cases. If I were trying to bring this into a new company I would ask people what they were doing for communicating with teams, or how they were using text messages, collaboration tools, video conferencing currently, etc., so that I could actually demonstrate how to do that same thing. 

There's literally hundreds of text tools, collaboration apps and video conferencing options on the market. The key to a business' success at communication is to ensure the various teams are all on the same platform or using the same tool.

That doesn't mean everyone in the company needs to use it the same way. If they're using the same tools, then at least, the base platform is the same and your company can build on that. Rather than Google docs for one thing and Microsoft Teams and, OneDrive, SharePoint, and all of these different tools, you've got to kind of pick a lane.

I would rate the solution overall at about an eight out of ten. That's due to the simplicity and ease of use. There are great features available. However, it loses a few points because the setup and the admin capabilities are different across platforms.

Microsoft Teams is used, in our case, to collaborate with all internal employees, to work on offering some proposals, and to work together online on files in Word and Excel. We largely use it to collaborate online and to have video meetings with customers. 

We can integrate SharePoint sites with other people. We have libraries that are available within Teams so that people can sync those libraries to their local drives and therefore will have the most up to date information and documents at their disposal.

The integration of online jobs and documents is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution. The ability to integrate tasks and to assign tasks to certain people is great. 

I'm really waiting for the release of Lists to be included. Lists is a new feature that will probably come into Teams in August. It will be a way of using some sort of database to enter interlinked lists.

I don't like the online version of Word and Excel. It skews the layout. It is no longer representative of the layout that you actually have in a document. You always have to open it in the desktop application to get an accurate representation of how the document will look. 

If you open a document in Teams, it opens online first. If you have, for instance, an entire image on the front page, that image is descaled to the right and to the bottom. So you have a lot of white space on the page, while in reality, it's pretty nicely aligned. You basically have a borderless page. That's one of the main things that they can improve on. If they had a workaround where you can open it in the desktop apps first, it would be better. 

The solution needs to adjust the number of protected channels within a team.

The solution should maybe include breakout rooms within a team meeting. For example, let's say you are with 10 people, within one meeting space. You can have three accounts in separate smaller "meeting rooms" with just two or three people accessing them and still be within the same larger meeting environment. Let's say if you have a team where you have some technical members, some solution architects, a bid manager, a capture manager, an account manager, etc., you should be able to break up a meeting into multiple smaller sessions on certain topics, and yet still stay within the same meeting space. 

They should include a visual application also within Teams, so drawings that are made can attach to that space within the proposal with the ability to add Word or Excel files, as well as tasks, etc.

We've been using the solution for two years now. That's well before everyone started using conferencing systems during COVID-19.

It's a stable solution. We haven't had any hiccups. Its been working flawlessly for the two years that I'm using it now.

The solution is easy to scale, however, you need to take into account best practices so that you don't lose oversight on the number of teams that you have. 

There are other things that can be improved of in terms of scaling. For the moment, you can have approximately 5,000+ different teams within your Office 365 license. In each team, you can have multiple channels. The number of channels with limited access rights is limited to 256 or 250. If you create a channel where you want to find all your different projects and you have more than 250 customers within one team, you run into issues. Then you have to create separate teams for each customer. In those teams, you have various possibilities on channels. We started using a team, for instance, for customer projects. However, in customer projects, you are limited. It's only on about 25 channels that you can give access rights to certain people. If you are working on the project with company X together for a customer, you don't want them to see another project for another customer with a competing solution. That's the tricky part.

That was a limitation that we encountered with scaling. We changed the approach from having a team customer project to creating teams for each customer where we have projects.

Currently, in our organization, we have 250 employees using Teams. We use it quite extensively every day.

We haven't really reached out to technical support. If we need support, we first reach out to our IT department and they will figure it out on our behalf, or contact Microsoft directly. In my experience, until now, with Office 365, I haven't had any issues. I'm satisfied with the product but I can't speak to any specific experience related to customer service.

We use a bunch of solutions at any given time. We have Cisco Webex, for example. We also have the Mitel My Call app and for some of our customers, we also need to use Zoom and BlueJeans. So we have quite a few solutions that are active.

If you look at just the feature of video conferencing and you look at Zoom and BlueJeans and Microsoft Teams, they're all pretty much alike. It's mainly the integration of everything document-wise and the consistency that I really liked within Microsoft Teams.

Out of all of the other solutions, BlueJeans is the one that I found the least reliable. We had quite a few hiccups where we eventually fell back to Cisco WebEx for video conferencing instead of the BlueJeans solution.

Then we have Zoom, which I have less experience with. It's used by a few vendors with whom we collaborate from time to time. They use Zoom predominantly, so when we conference with them, it's largely through that.

In terms of Cisco WebEx, the thing that I don't like is that if someone invites you for a meeting and you connect to the meeting early, you don't get notified when the meeting actually starts, so you constantly have to reload until the meeting organizer starts the meeting and accepts you. For instance, last week, I went into a Cisco WebEx meeting. I connected two minutes before the actual time that the meeting should have started. I opened the WebEx application and the meeting didn't start. 10 minutes later, I reloaded the application and reconnected to the session and they were already actively meeting. The application didn't notify me when the meeting actually started. That's a big drawback.

The solution is installed by our IT department. In the beginning, we had some issues with assigning rights. Not everybody was able to create a team or to invite people into a team or to share files. However, now they have changed a few things around. There are quite a few people now that can create teams, add members, etc., and you can add external members and there are a few new policies internally about best practices.

I was one of the first parties to implement a solution like Teams. Our company bought a few companies and every company was using different tools as their main resource. The one thing that they all had in common was Microsoft Office 365, and yet they didn't use Teams at that time. I was one of the people asking our organization to implement Teams because my position requires me to have to collaborate with people from all of the different companies that our company bought.

The deployment was done in less than a week. That was due largely due to the availability of our IT staff. Once they began doing the implementation, however, it was done within a few hours. It was activated, rights were assigned, and people with rights could begin working and downloading the team's application on smart devices, on their computers almost right away. 

It's as easy as using Skype for a private person. You just download the application and you can start.

I believe we've been using the latest versions of the solution. We use whichever version is pushed out with Office 365.

I would recommend the product. It works with everything. I have an iPad Pro, I have an iPhone, I have my computer. It's installed on all three devices. It works flawlessly. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten, simply because there are a few things the solution still needs to improve upon.

We use it for team meetings. We're still in the process of evaluating the solution, however. 

The solution provides very clear conferencing, even on mobile devices. The voice clarity is excellent.

Organizing a meeting is very simple to do.

The solution provides for comfortable use. New users are able to navigate it pretty easily.

The interface of the solution could use improvement. Right now, the gold standard in terms of team conferencing user interfaces seems to be Zoom. Microsoft Teams should see if they could make their interface and usability as simple as that.

It's not as easy to augment your meetings as it is with competitors. For example, in Zoom, if I want to add attendees, I just grab the meeting link and post it to them. With Teams, how to do this is not as clear.

I'm pretty new to Teams. I've only been using it for the past two months or so.

The stability of the solution is good. The product is reliable in that sense. I haven't experienced crashes. There aren't bugs or glitches that disrupt the user experience. 

It's quite easy to scale the solution if you need to. It's possible to add new people into meetings, for example. We haven't had any issues in that sense.

Our IT department is engaging with Microsoft locally. I haven't made contact with technical support personally. As we were offered one free month of service, we're doing some experiments ont he platform.

We are now on Chatter. The entire team is using and Chatter. We have 5,000 Chatter licenses. The entire organization is using it. We are also evaluating Microsoft 365 which includes Teams.

Internally we are using Chatter across the company as of now. We will continue to use Chatter as it is part of our CRM and all the customer and customer service related communication will be through Chatter only. We are planning to use Microsoft Teams as a collaborative platform in the future.

Currently, now the entire communication of the company is between Teams and the corporate office is appraising each solution.

I've used Zoom in the past, as well as WebEx. With Teams, the clarity of the meeting is good, including when you are using it on a wireless device. Zoom, however, has the easiest interface. It's the most popular option currently on the market. Everyone is using Zoom. 

WebEx I wouldn't recommend. It takes a lot of bandwidth and is more difficult to use.

The initial setup was a bit complex. I couldn't really follow it very well.

Microsoft offers new users one free month of service, so it's easy to try it out if you want to.

Currently, we're just a customer of Microsoft. We aren't consultants or resellers.

To be honest, everyone is using Zoom these days. The familiarity with that system is higher, and the recommendation for that system is higher. 

When I set up Microsoft Teams, people were not very accustomed to how to use it. However, users have found that using it on the laptop is pretty good. Overall the system looks good. That said, when you try to use it on mobile, we've found the bandwidth is higher.

Currently, as a new user, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. If the interface was just a bit better, and it was easier to organize a meeting, I would rate it higher. Generally, it just needs to be tweaked to make it more user friendly.

Although we're not fully subscribed to the solution, I would recommend it to others.

We primarily use the solution for video conferencing and meetings.

There are a lot of applications being developed on Microsoft for Teams. They are building out a lot of Office 365 apps and the integration with everything is great.

The call quality has been very good, especially compared to Skype.

We like that you can get a lot of users on one call without the call actually failing or losing quality. Hosts can connect, if I recall correctly, up to 90,000 people. If you need a massive company-wide meeting, you can do it.

The UI can be further improved upon. When I used to use Skype, Skype was a small window that opened on your desktop. With Teams, when you use it, it occupies your full screen just like if you were in Word or Excel. Skype worked more like an app, which I preferred. I liked being able to use it in a minimized screen. If Teams could emulate that a bit, it would be a better user experience.

When we share the screen, we can't actually take control of the user's screen. When I'm trying to do some activity for another person or want to change something for them, it's not possible. In a technical way, I would like to take control of a system where I'm seeing the screen and I want to do some changes, while we are discussing things during meetings.

We've been using the solution for about six months now. It hasn't been that long.

There are occasional patches that are released and updates that need to happen. Occasionally services go down. However, for the most part, the solution is stable.

We haven't had any scalability issues so far. With the COVID-19 situation, our usage really shot up on Teams. We didn't run into any problems scaling up. So many people who were not using Teams are on the platform now. Previously, the solution was used by 30-40% of the company, and now it's closer to 70-80%. 

I've never been in touch with technical support.

We used to rely on Skype and have since moved over to Teams. It was pretty simple for us to decide on Teams because we were already using Microsoft products. 

A lot of the products that we use are Microsoft, including Skype. However, Microsoft is slowly stopping support for Skype and they're moving towards Teams due to the fact that a lot of applications are getting developed now on Teams.

It took our company about two months to put everything in place. We had to do some integration with a few of our colleagues.

I'm not really too sure on the pricing. That is not something that I handle. That is something that our payment team handles. 

We're just a customer. We're not partners with Microsoft.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If the UI was better, where the system wouldn't take over the whole screen. I'd rate it higher. I'd also rate it higher if there was the capability not to just share screens, but to take over the screens of other people in a meeting, so discussions and changes could happen in real-time.

I'd definitely recommend Teams over both Skype and Zoom. In my opinion, it's far superior.

We use Microsoft Teams to communicate with colleagues via scheduling meetings and calls.

Microsoft Teams could log in faster.

We have 100 Microsoft Teams users in our organization.

I use Zoom and Google Meet as well.

The initial setup process is straightforward for technical executives.

I rate Microsoft Teams a ten out of ten.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to share documents easily.

It is challenging to sign up for a new device for the solution. It could be better.

We have been using the solution for three years. At present, we use the latest version.

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

We have more than 2000 solution users in our organization. I rate its scalability a seven out of ten.

The solution's initial setup is easy. I rate the process a nine out of ten.

The solution is very secure. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The video calls are the primary use case for me. 

Video calls and chats are essential features for me. Clear voice and video calls are preferable. 

Additionally, I find the ability to maintain group and conference information for project-related work useful. Microsoft Teams allow us to create projects and store relevant data, making it a good tool for me. I feel comfortable using it.

One area that could be improved is the authentication process, especially related to Windows sign-on authentication. Apart from that, Teams is great in terms of documentation.  

So, the authentication process needs to be better.

I have been using Microsoft Teams for more than ten years. 

I would give the stability a ten out of ten. I haven't experienced any issues with Teams. It has been very stable for me.

I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability. It depends on the licenses and the number of users based on the licenses.

In our organization, we have around 250 users using this solution.

From my perspective, I haven't personally interacted with technical support. However, from what I understand from my network team, Microsoft provides 24/7 support for any network-related issues.

The initial setup is very simple and user-friendly. Microsoft has done a good job of making it easy to use.

We have both a desktop version and a web-based version.

Deployment doesn't take much time to install Teams on a desktop or laptop. The deployment process is quick, especially with the authentication in place.

Zoom also works, but personally, I find Teams to be better than Zoom. Teams has been more reliable in my experience.

So, I find Teams to be better than other solutions like Zoom.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Teams a nine out of ten. It's a very good product. I would recommend using this solution.