Microsoft Teams Reviews

We use the solution for remote meetings.

The solution's most valuable aspect is that tap function.

It's great for meeting conferences. 

The solution is scalable.

I'm not sure if there are any improvements in terms of features that the solution needs right now. It works quite well for us.

The solution should fix the ease of use directly outside of the office environment. Right now, unless I'm at my office desktop, it's hard to access it.

I've been using the solution for one to two years.

You can scale the solution if you need to. It does quite well in that regard and covers our needs very well. A company that needs to expand it out can do so quite easily.

Currently, we don't have more than 15 users on the solution.

I've never used technical support. Therefore I can't speak to the quality of service. I have no idea how responsive they are or how knowledgeable they might be.

For business purposes, we previously used Skype. Personally, I liked Skype the best at the beginning, when we started using Teams. However, now I'm okay with Teams as well. I really liked Skype's interface, and I was used to its layout and using it. I'm not sure if there's too much of a difference in terms of the services they offer and their functionality.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

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.

Our company is moving from their Skype for Business to Teams. So I've seen it, I've looked at it, I've used it somewhat enjoyed the UI. Teams has been very friendly. I have no qualms about going to Teams from Skype. I have yet a lot to discover.

There's one thing that I was disappointed in when I was trying to invite my whole team to a meeting. I had to type the team members versus being able to set up a team's group of names as you can do with Outlook. It would be nice if you could take the ones that dial in with their phone numbers and it had some type of translation. The idea is to get the name of the person dialing in. I don't know if they can get tricky and pick up a name that's associated with that number or prompt the user as they do on Skype.

I'm a new user of Microsoft Teams, I've only used it for a week.

I haven't encountered any stability problems at this point

I would rate Microsoft Team on an even par with Skype for Business. I would give it an 8 on a scale from one to10.

We using Teams for internal and external communication. It is for one-on-one chats as well as group discussions.

The most valuable feature is the ability to have remote meetings with customers and colleagues.

The user interface is non-intuitive and should be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Teams for about a year.

Microsoft Teams is a stable product.

I have not had a problem with scalability. We are using it corporate-wide across all company roles. At this point, I don't see our usage increasing.

I rely on our internal team for technical support, so I have not used support from Microsoft.

Prior to Microsoft Teams, we were using Skype for Business. I prefer the interface that Skype has.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Microsoft Teams is included with our Office 365.

Our in-house team handled the deployment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use Teams for customer team meetings and partner team meetings. We also use it for internal communication.

The most valuable feature for me is the chat. It is what I use the most because if I have to reach a team member, given that we are all working remotely, it is the easiest way to do it. 

The user interface needs to be improved. After six months of working with it, I still find the UI a little clunky when it comes to sharing content and moving around between features like the calendar and files. Sometimes, when I'm on a call and somebody asks if I can share a file or a link, I find it clunky to get to where those pieces are. Overall, navigation is a little sticky.

We have been using Microsoft Teams for about six months.

For what we do, it is absolutely stable. We have an enterprise team and it is used constantly.

We have had some fairly large meetings on here and I think that it scales fine.

I have never needed to contact technical support.

Prior to using Teams, we were using WebEx. We still use WebEx from time to time, but for the most part, we use Teams. It is better for us because Teams is integrated with all of the backend Microsoft environment that we already have. For example, we use SharePoint, ShareFile, and others. It has files integrated as well, so we can place internal files for review on Teams.

WebEx is more of a platform just for jumping on a call with a few people.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

The primary use case of this solution is as a collaboration platform. We use it extensively for online meetings, chat, creating specific team related sites, and sharing content between the team members.

The most valuable feature is the ability to collaborate.

Web conferencing needs improvements.

The biggest issue is web content.

We would like to have a caller's telephone number easily available to the team members.

We have been using Microsoft Teams for three to four months.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Primarily we are using Microsoft Teams to facilitate collaboration during events and meetings. All of our meetings are voice and video. We are also using it for document sharing.

We use a file folder structure for maintaining all of our documents. There are version controls for projects that are completed and help to maintain the documentation.

Microsoft Teams has helped us improve collaboration through the use of chats, as well as conferencing, voice calls, knowledge management, and maintaining a repository. At this time, we spend four or five hours a day communicating using Teams.

The main features that we use extensively are voice and video calling. They have improved these features and the improvements are happening continuously. 

The other feature that we like is the repository, which is used for knowledge management. It integrates with SharePoint, where we can store and retrieve documents, maintain version control, and collaborate with each other.

I like these aspects of it, but this is a feature-rich product and I am probably not even aware of all the features that it has.

Microsoft Teams is quite demanding on bandwidth, which has been a problem during the COVID situation because we don't get enterprise-class bandwidth at home. Currently, we use broadband, and even the little variations that happen can throw you out of a meeting. It seems that you get disconnected really fast.

It takes a long time to load, which is something that could be improved.

Having a dial-in feature would be helpful because it would allow more people to be included in meetings.

I have been using Microsoft Teams for almost two years.

This is an extremely stable product and we use it on a daily basis. Since we have been on the cloud, I haven't seen any failures that have been the fault of the service. As long as our internet is up, it is working.

I don't see scalability as an issue. Initially, we had fewer licenses than we do now. As we expanded, we acquired more licenses and added more team members to the platform.

From what I recall, we started with about 500 licenses and we now have closer to 2,000. Two weeks ago, we had about 700 regular users. Adding users was seamless from our perspective, although you have to make sure that your network is configured properly, otherwise, there may be issues with performance.

I do not speak with Microsoft support directly. When I have a problem, I simply call my support staff.

I have used similar solutions and I wouldn't say that Teams has the best in terms of voice and video calling, although I have seen continuous improvement over time and I am happy with that. For example, we used to only see four people on a video call, and it has been increased to nine. These kinds of improvements are good.

On the other hand, when compared to other collaboration software, it is more bandwidth-intensive and takes longer to load. In general, it is heavier.

Prior to using Teams, we had been using Microsoft Exchange 2013. We migrated to Office 365 two years ago, which includes Teams as part of the package. While we were still using Exchange, we ordered Skype. From my perspective, Teams is much more stable than Skype. I found that if we used Skype in a very small network, for example with three routers, then it would work fine. Otherwise, we had issues with quality and stability.

The initial setup is easy, as most products from Microsoft are. It follows the same idea and is not difficult. We have the E3 subscription, so we are always using the latest version.

When we migrated from our Microsoft Exchange platform to Office 365, we had consultants come in to assist us with that. We also had some guidance from Microsoft.

The pricing for Teams is very competitive.

We did look at a couple of other products as well, including Zoom. Because of issues regarding security with Zoom, we only use it very rarely.

Network performance does impact teams, but Microsoft does give recommendations as to how the internet and network should be set up. If you follow these instructions then there will be fewer problems to fix. Essentially, if you are implementing this product then you need to very clearly understand the network requirements. Tweaking things on the network side is very important.

Overall, this is a very good collaboration product and the only thing stopping me from giving it a perfect grade is the heavy bandwidth usage.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're partners with Microsoft and I'm a senior solutions manager. 

I think the collaborating feature is valuable.

The user interface could be improved, it's a bit tedious that you cannot move around within the solution without closing what you are in the middle of.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have approximately 500 users. 

We have our own support. 

We used Skype prior to Teams and switched because support for Skype was terminated. 

I would rate this solution a four out of 10. 

The primary use case of this solution is for collaboration with your calendar and sharing information with SharePoint.

The most valuable features are that it is an all-in-one platform, making it very easy for collaboration with your core employees. 

You can also create a private room for discussion, and It has a pure conference call.

It has more core features than other platforms like Zoom.

It's tied to your day-to-day common tools such as Word, Excel, and Outlook.

The interface is easy to use.

You can back up using your existing infrastructure just as you can in Veeam and Altaro, or any others that can back up the SaaS.

They should consider adding the feature to allow new users, without it being an additional fee.

When comparing features with other vendors, the only thing is that the bridge is not included unless you need it. For users that use the computer or apps, there is no need for a bridge.

The security needs improvement, as well as the ability to back up private chats. They have indicated that it is under development. They need to ensure that the private meetings are not visible to others because of the privacy law.

I am pretty new to using this solution after I migrated from Skype for Business. It's less than a year that I have been using it.

There are many levels of pricing.

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.

Bridging is a cost of $20 or $30.00 dollars, which is part of the subscription.

I love this solution, even though it's not common because it's migrating all existing users from Skype for Business.

I think that they will discontinue Skype because the direction is moving to Teams.

There may be others who require more, but for us, it meets our requirements and needs.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.