TeamViewer Reviews

We use TeamViewer's infrastructure. We have TeamViewer host clients running on devices, some wired in offices, some connected to WiFi or even cellular, and we use it to get quick access to the devices for technical support.

The other use case, which is a little bit weird, is that all of our clients are in healthcare so they are very particular about who gets into their network and who has access to their network. What we've found is that when a client has our company's software on one of the servers in their network, sometimes they don't want to give us access to their network to maintain our software. So whenever they have a problem with our software, we open a TeamViewer session from a desktop inside their network to our tech support group, and that person gives us access to the server so that we can maintain our software.

Again, that use case is a technical-support-type application, but it's a little bit different than us managing our own devices in the field. It is a tool that allows us to access our devices on somebody else's network under their supervision, without needing our own unfettered access. It makes it easier for IT security to approve us and it makes it easier for the client to get us in, particularly in circumstances where there's some urgency around that.

The vast majority of our users use TeamViewer on Windows machines. Some are desktops, some are tablets, and the latter range from a Surface Pro to a more substantial, military-ruggedized type of tablet.

The big benefit is that we can do things pretty quickly and easily, remotely. In many cases, we save a service visit to the field, which would otherwise require us to have a very large field service force or we would need to pay for and train somebody else's field service force. Quite literally, without TeamViewer's capabilities, we wouldn't be able to run our business.

Remote desktop control is what we use in TeamViewer for 99.999 percent of what we do. 

We occasionally use the integrated text chat. There are circumstances we've seen where certain applications don't respond because they've got some sort of security built into them so that a remote user isn't able to control them. We can log in with TeamViewer, view the screen, and then leave instructions in the text chat that say, "Okay, please do this. Now, please do this. Now, please do that." We can actually guide the client through what they need to do, even for applications that don't allow a remote-control user to modify them.

The other thing that we're beginning to use more is the feature where, at the end of each session, you can type a quick note as to why you were logging in to that device. We've started putting in notes saying things like, "I went in to update Windows software," or, "I went in to fix a bug," or, "I went in to update our own software." We have not gone to the next step of reporting on, analyzing, reviewing, or using those comments as a way to drive additional follow-up. But it does at least give us the first step so that if somebody says, "Hey, why were you in my machine?" we can produce documentation that says why.

The TeamViewer system has some built-in security. The TeamViewer client connects to the TeamViewer host securely. Only a certain number of authorized users on our side have access to the system. Even within that, an individual endpoint can be assigned to a group, where not everybody has access but, rather, just one or two people who are part of a support team might have access to that particular device. So TeamViewer has given us tools to be able to segregate who has access to different things. That's been pretty helpful in dealing with some of our clients who have more "buttoned-up" security. They're able to say: "These two people have access to the devices." We have designated support people for that client who can go into their device and nobody else can even see that the device exists. That's really helpful.

The remote connection process is totally simple. It's as easy as it comes. We do install the software on field devices, but we also have TeamViewer's widget on our website. So, if you go to the support page on our website, you can click a link and download a white-labeled TeamViewer app that pops up and gives you a service key that you can fill in. That's an interesting tool. It makes it easier for customers who are not one of our owned assets to quickly download and light up a TeamViewer session so that we can help them with software configuration updates. Sometimes it's not even things that are our problem, but they don't know who else to call, so they call us.

I find it pretty easy to use. They redesigned the interface a while ago, and, honestly, when I first looked at it, it seemed sort of clumsy, but, now that I've gotten used to it, it's pretty darn easy. At first, everything was totally different. Doing simple things that I used to do, like connecting to a certain device, went from being obvious to a situation where there were just so many more features available that I had to click through to find the simple thing that I was trying to do.

In addition, and I don't know if it's TeamViewer's problem or not, I do find that sometimes we'll have a device in the field, and I'll click on remote control and it says "Can't authenticate." I'll double click in a different part of the TeamViewer interface and it'll say "Can't authenticate." Then I'll do it a third time and it connects. It's possible that it's just bad luck. It's also very possible that it's some bug within TeamViewer so that with the first click I'm waking up the TeamViewer connection, and with the second click I'm starting the connection but it's taking a long time because it's in a bad cell zone. Then, the third time, it's working because finally the thing is awake and recognized and is passing everything through. It may have nothing to do with TeamViewer, or it may be a TeamViewer issue. I don't know. That's the only thing I've really noticed that is problematic from our perspective. We'll see a device, we'll see it's online and that it should be available, but when we try to connect it doesn't connect. So that's a challenge.

In terms of additional features, the more TeamViewer can work with, and on, different devices, that would be helpful. We're doing some R&D with Cisco for some modems that have an IOx, which is a Unix-based compute area. If we could control that device using TeamViewer, that would be cool because, otherwise, we have to buy a Cisco cloud management software system to monitor those devices; similar to the Cradle Point. I'm not aware of any sort of onboard storage where we could install TeamViewer on a Cradlepoint, but if that is the case, then they should let people know about it because that would be a useful tool.

One of the things that would be a cool feature, and I'm not sure how TeamViewer could make it happen, would be to take an ad hoc TeamViewer session from our support website and, in the course of that, install the TeamViewer host, so that a client device would then become part of our network of machines we can get to relatively easily. That would be a huge time and energy saver. One of the things we find is that there will be a device and the users of that device have to use our software from time to time, but they don't use it often enough to really be good at it. So each time they use it, they go back through the learning-curve process. If we were able to quickly jump on their machine and walk them through what to do and how to do it, that would make it easier for them and easier for us.

We've been using TeamViewer for four or five years. We started out on version 8 and we're up to 15 now.

The stability has been very good with the possible exception, as I mentioned earlier, of that three-clicks-to-connect issue, which seems to come and go. My guess is that it's something related to our devices being on cellular connections in areas with really bad cell service. But I've noticed it typically occurs when there's either a Windows update or a TeamViewer update, so it makes me wonder if maybe Microsoft introduces some sort of incompatibility that screws up TeamViewer and then there's a TeamViewer update that fixes it. We just have to remember to keep TeamViewer up to date on all of our clients in the field.

We only manage 30 devices. I could see, if we had a thousand devices, that the management part might become a little more complicated. Given that you can separate different devices into groups, and you can give different people access to different groups, it might be relatively straightforward. Huge scalability isn't something that we've had to deal with yet.

The monitoring, asset management, and endpoint protection are things we just haven't had the time or the mental energy to test. If they work as advertised, those seem like they'd be great features for simplifying remote management. In terms of expanding use of TeamViewer, those are next on the list. 

We'll be looking at endpoint protection; the patch-management and device health monitoring. Those are things we're very interested in. We want to do them to see how much, if any, additional CPU load and communication load is put on the device. We are a little concerned that we're going to clog up these fairly lightweight devices out in the field with a lot of administrative overhead instead of leaving them to do what they're supposed to do. We would probably do one or two as a test, just to see how it goes, and then start to crank it up. We have about 30 devices in the field that we monitor with TeamViewer; it's not like we've got tens of thousands.

We have used technical support very sparingly, but when we've used it they've been great. They are very responsive, very knowledgeable, and they typically resolve our issue with one or two calls.

We actually initially started using it because we're based on the east coast in Boston and Washington, D.C. and we had a client in Chicago who had our software on a number of devices. He wanted those computers to be someone else's problem, namely our problem. He asked us to have some sort of solution in place so that we could quickly visit the computer, check that everything was working, upload Windows updates, upload software updates for our software — whatever was needed to make sure that they were happy and healthy, including rebooting them from time to time. That's how we started with TeamViewer. Since then, more and more machines have been added to the list; some with this client and some with other clients. We found it so easy with that first client that we wondered why in the world we weren't using it with everybody else.

We find the initial setup of TeamViewer very straightforward, but not everybody finds it as straightforward as we do. It takes minutes. Deploying TeamViewer is incredibly easy.

I don't really have a firm answer for how many end-users can now be supported with one support person, versus how many could be supported in the past. We didn't really have a pre-existing field support organization. But it's very clear that by using TeamViewer and not needing to go do field views visits, that we're a million times more productive. The eight hours of travel that might've been part of a field visit to go help one customer now become eight productive hours that you can be helping other customers or doing other things.

A lot of the TeamViewer stuff is done by people who do technical support for sales or technical support for core development. If they can quickly pop into a user's computer, check something out, fix something for them, and go back to their work, they get a lot more development work done than if they have to get in a car and drive somewhere or get on a plane and fly somewhere to do that same look at the client's setup and what needs to be fixed.

If you take a $100,000-a-year employee and enable him to spend 20 minutes per service call instead of eight hours per service call, that's a pretty darn impressive return.

TeamViewer is a great value. We obviously wish it was less expensive because we want everything to be free all the time. But we do recognize that sometimes you have to pay for things, just like we try to convince our clients that they should pay for our software. 

TeamViewer is $600 or $700 per port per year, which we find that to be just fine. If we paid $100 per port per year we'd be happier, but we're very happy with the quality of the service and the capabilities that gives us. So it's been a great value for us.

I could go look up how many TeamViewer sessions we do per year, how many where we couldn't get the information through some other method, but that's where it becomes complicated to say specifically what the ROI is. 

It's clear that it's a valuable product. 

It's probably not valuable for everyone because there might be people who've got devices or systems where they have to hear it or smell it running to be able to diagnose what's going on. That's not really TeamViewer's strength. Its strength is getting visibility into a remote desktop, at least as far as we know, so that you can diagnose and treat a computer issue.

We've used a LogMeIn and there was something else that we've used, a solution that a partner of ours used which we tried for a while. TeamViewer seems to be a much more complete, stable, and reliable solution.

It's hard to make comparisons because it's been so long since I used LogMeIn. Longer ago than that, I used to use a VNC product that conceptually did the same stuff: gave me remote access to desktops. That was clunky, but it was probably as good as could be expected given the tools at the time. 

As a user who has been given remote support access via LogMeIn, what people have done with LogMeIn's help function seems easier than what we do with TeamViewer. That may be entirely because we're not organized well enough in our TeamViewer implementation to be doing it the right way. I certainly don't want to bash TeamViewer's capabilities, because I think it's more likely that we just don't know all the things we could do.

With LogMeIn Rescue, the technician gives you an ID number. You put the ID number in and they're in your computer. And TeamViewer can probably do the same thing. I just haven't gone through the process of learning how to make that happen. The way we do it via our website is that you click a link, you download something, it pops open, it gives you an ID, the person then tells you the ID, then you're in. It's a couple of extra steps, rather than just being a web browser access.

If somebody asks me what I recommend for remote support, I always recommend TeamViewer. If they say, "I use LogMeIn, and I love it," I wouldn't be surprised. I've been a user of LogMeIn's remote support, and it seems like a pretty effective and easy-to-use tool. I'm sure the market is big enough for more than two players, but we're pretty comfortably ensconced with TeamViewer as our solution.

Do it. It's outstanding. It's very simple. We love it.

TeamViewer has a lot of additional features. They do audio and even video chat through TeamViewer. They do patch management, asset control, and all sorts of other things and we've actually thought about some of those other services, but we haven't taken the plunge yet.

We have not integrated TeamViewer with a single sign-on application. We actually use the TeamViewer host as often as we can on our remote devices. The device in the field is always on and always connected, and the people on our side who need to log in and access those devices will use the standard TeamViewer authentication process, which is pretty thorough. It's a username and password and it has a visual Captcha and then, when you register a device, it also emails and says, "Hey, we saw that you just signed in on this device from this location. Is that you?" They know what they're doing.

The idea of using TeamViewer for 5G deployments and smart poles with IoT devices is potentially interesting because we have a lot of Cradlepoint modems out in the field and Cradlepoint has a cloud management console. If it would be possible for us to use TeamViewer to access and manage those devices, that would be interesting because we pay $80 a year per device for the license in the Cradlepoint console.

In terms of end-users of TeamViewer in our company, we only have three ports and we have five or six usernames. There are three or four guys who do most of the work, remoting into various devices and rooting around to see if they can fix something or if there are things that need to be fixed.

The primary use case is getting access to various test machines from one location.

AirTies makes smart WiFi technology which end up in people's homes. I set it up in a house with WiFi devices. We test our Extenders and gateways with a bunch of clients using TeamViewer. I can access the clients to view the data being collected or what's connecting to wired ports. I do this locally, and sometimes, I access the home office in Istanbul.

It is used on a mix of Mac and Windows machines. Even though we have Android and iOS devices to test for WiFi devices, we haven't put TeamViewer on them yet.

We have a lot of IOT devices, but we haven't used TeamViewer that much manage them or get to them. While I'm open to it, I'm not sure of the roadmap for the rest of the QA team.

We can get machines logged off and check statuses of what's going on a lot easier. Otherwise, you need to track things in the office or wait for someone to be online in Istanbul, which is a bit tough because Istanbul is eight hours ahead of us. 

I've had coworkers who have done remote debugging. So, they ask a client to install TeamViewer so they can access their network from our office and help them troubleshoot problems in the field. In these cases, it is more of a support type role offered.

TeamViewer shows you what is on the desktop of the target machine.

The two features that I use the most are getting onto a desktop, so I can access it, and File Transfer. Quite often, we need put new firmware out there across the network or I need to get logs from a device. So, I log into different PC and just use File Transfer to move stuff back and forth.

There have been a couple of times with the handy remote access feature, where I have been asked for something at eight o'clock on a Thursday evening and it is on my desk machine, but I am driving back to my office. With TeamViewer, I can just stay at my home machine, connect to my work machine, and get the data needed without having to drive back across town.

It does have screen recording, which is a cool feature that I have only used twice.

It has been pretty easy to use. It probably does more things than I know that it can do, so it's probably even more robust than I think. What I do use it for, it is a piece of cake to use. They changed a couple of menu options between versions 13 and 14.

The remote connection process is reliable, good, and fast. On occasion, when it can't connect to a machine, the error messages aren't always helpful to tell you why you can't connect, as the message doesn't help troubleshoot whether it is too slow, too much interference, etc. I usually have to run to another computer and figure out what is going on, then restart it. The diagnostics could be improved.

I have been using TeamViewer for a year and a half at AirTies at this location. It now is required with the job. I have a bunch of different PCs spread around the house which I need access to., but don't want to chase down. My previous experience before AirTies was hit or miss. I didn't use it too often, only if I needed to set up remote access for something.

It has been really stable. It has only locked up once, and I believe this was because I got confused over a network issue since I was changing networks. It is nice that the product is stable. So if I can't connect, it's probably a computer or network problem, not a software problem.

For everything that I use it, it has been rock solid.

I am the only official tester. So, I maintain all the systems. I don't know how many people are on the QA test teams in Istanbul. It might be around 30 people and need an IT team of about 8. However, I am not sure how much they do get called up to test and maintain TeamViewer. Usually, I'm doing all the IT functions.

It scales pretty well. Every time that we get a new machine, we install TeamViewer on it. However, we only buy a new machine every 14 months or so.

There are no obvious limitation to how many end users that we can support. E.g., our home office has six test locations with an entire development team and QA team where have 50 to 60 people.

Our development, QA, and IT teams have access to TeamViewer. Our development team uses it the most. The IT team, which is about eight people, uses it a little. The QA team use it as needed, but not daily. On and off, 20 people use it, but 60 people have access to it.

I haven't had a chance to use their tech support. I've only searched a couple times on forums.

For our client, we just download, install it, install another one internally, and generate the unique ID. Then, you're good to go. The only thing that we do change is the password. It's a lot easier to type it in than the computer generated one.

The install process takes 5 to ten minutes. This includes time to record the ID for look up later on.

It saves me a lot of trouble. Time-wise, it is probably saving me several hours because I don't have to travel anywhere. I just wait for the time difference. With the time difference, it is really hard to talk to people halfway around the planet sometimes.

It has probably saved us several thousands of dollars because we have quick access anywhere. We don't have to worry about finding people onsite or arranging conference calls. We also save time and money with it because we don't have to send somebody onsite to troubleshoot.

TeamViewer offers a free version to try. Download and give it a shot. See what it's like and if you like it, then buy the license for it.

We tell people not to license TeamViewer internally, but they can download it. The product is not quite organized for distribution.

I've used VNC in the past at another company. I like TeamViewer a bit better, as it has more tools built-in. The File Transfer thing is awesome, and it also runs faster than VNC. VNC is free and easy to set up, but it's not user-friendly nor does it have as many options as TeamViewer. VNC doesn't have the powerful UI that TeamViewer has nor does VNC echo the screen like TeamViewer does.

There is also pcAnywhere, which is more PC-centric (not sure if it will work on a Mac). TeamViewer has a lot less overhead versus pcAnywhere. Also, I know that TeamViewer can anywhere and on a Mac.

Test it out and see if it meets your needs. 

It's awesome. Nothing else compares to it at the same level.

Biggest lesson learnt: There are tools available which don't cost too much and can improve productivity. They can make it so you don't have to travel so much.

We haven't done any 5G stuff yet. All our stuff is done WiFi locally.

We use it for remote access to other machines. That was the main reason why we bought it. It is for our help desk and support guys to access remote users' machines.

Our users have it on their laptops. We can also do a bit of remote support for Apple devices, but it is basically a screen share. You can just see their screen. You can't manipulate anything, but you can see what they are looking at on their screens. Therefore, it's mostly for laptops, desktop machines, and the PC environment.

It is mostly for the regular support, for anybody who is having issues with a machine.

I use the solution quite a bit. I love it.

It provides efficiency, even if it is something as simple as just maintenance, something that is broken, adding something, a walk-through, or doing training. It is a great tool.

The remote connect process is super simple. As long as the user has an Internet connection and can get on the Internet somewhere, whether they are at home (on their WiFi), using portable Internet (Jetpack), or if they stop in a Starbucks to get on the Internet, I can connect to them. That is what is really convenient.

It was worth the investment. You can do file transfers and video calls with it. You can do a lot of copy paste stuff. E.g., if I have a file and want to place it on somebody's machine, I can just copy it off of mine and paste it right on their machine. I don't have to put it in a Dropbox account and have them log into it to pull it off. I can do all that right through TeamViewer. When you are looking at the TeamViewer screen, you think you are working on your own machine.

It is really easy to use. If I can get a machine on the Internet, I can get on it and fix whatever is wrong with it. I keep an individual list of all of our machines that TeamViewer is installed on. So, I have all the IDs, etc. This makes it easy for me to get to their machines.

This saves a ton of time. A guy can call me, who is out on the road, and say, “Hey, I left my machine on, and it is at home. Can you go in and..." either install software or fix something, because something is not working right, etc. Then, I can remote into his machine and fix stuff, before he even gets home. This rather than try to walk him through fixing something, which isn't always the easiest. So, I can jump on and fix something in five minutes, which would probably take an hour normally.

You don't need to be an IT professional to use it.

If they could figure out a little better solution for the iOS stuff other than just a screen share, even though it's an Apple thing, and Apple doesn't like to give up control of their devices. If they ever got to that point, and I could manipulate an iPad or iPhone, that would be awesome. Since we have a bunch of iPad users who are struggling with doing different things, it would be nice to be able to just jump on and actually show them, "Here, do this, this, and this." Similar to what we do with the laptops, e.g. for training.

We have probably had it three to four years. It has been quite a while.

The stability has been really good. I can probably count on one hand how many times that it wasn't available or that they had some sort of an outage, which has been pretty brief. I don't ever think it's ever been longer than an hour, and that has been rare. It is really stable.

You could add as many users on here as you want. We probably access around 500 devices.

We have eight licenses now. Therefore, we have eight users who can remote access machines.

I have three monitors that I use. While it's not real common, there are times when I'm on three to four people's machines at one time trying to fix different things. I imagine if I had more monitors that could be organized enough to make sure I am using the right stuff on the right machines, I could probably do whatever our Internet could handle. I could probably do 20 people at a time.

As we add more PCs (or whatever devices), TeamViewer gets added onto them. I use TeamViewer all day long, like it is my right arm. I haven't run a report in quite awhile, but I spend probably half of my day using the software on somebody else's machine.

The technical support has been great. The couple of times that I have ever needed anything, I will send an email. I receive a reply back pretty quickly, then a follow up. They will let me know, "Hey, somebody is either going to call you, or you will get an email follow up." It depends on what the question is, but I get something back very quickly. If I needed to get another license, I could send an email right now and have a license in probably 15 minutes.

We had another software that we used for a while called Virtual Network Connection (VNC), which allowed us to access machines. The problem with that solution was that it had to be on a VPN connection. They had to be connected to our network, so it was a lot more difficult to be able to get on their machines. For those machines, we added TeamViewer. Now, every time that they boot up the users' machines, it launches if they are on the Internet. It connects, and I can see whose machines are on and whose aren't.

The VPN solution was through Bell Labs at one time and has been around a long long time. It was a free solution that you just download off the Internet, if you want to. While it works okay, it's not the greatest. The problem with it is that you still need a VPN connection to our network for it to work. Because it is point-to-point, it won't go through the Internet. With TeamViewer, if the machine is on the Internet, it doesn't matter where on the globe the device is, it works. With the VNC software, you have to connect back to our network on a private connection, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The VNC solution was cumbersome to use. TeamViewer is so much easier.

The initial setup is real easy. We have the software loaded on all the machines that we send out. You just click on the icon to let it load. We put a username in it, then we set up an access password, and it's done. That is it.

It literally takes probably about two to three minutes from start to finish.

We did everything ourselves.

The tool cuts my time in half. If it's a 40 hour week, I would say that I am saving 20 hours a week. It is really that good. The time savings are substantial. That is not including if there are issues where I would needed to have had somebody send something into me, or when you tell somebody, “Well, click on the start button," and the response is, “I can't see the start button.”

I spend half of my day using it to access somebody else's machines. If I couldn't do that, and I had to have them send the equipment to me, the shipping, hours, and lost productivity would be a huge cost.

From just a cost perspective, it pays for itself within the first month, or probably less than that. Within a few weeks, it would pay for an annual licensing fee by what you would save in time and everything else per person.

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. 

A rough estimate of our user cost is $500 per user annually. It is very cheap.

About a year ago today, an add-on channel was $232 dollars, but that was pro-rated because it was at the end of the month.

The only issue that I ever did have with it, and this was quite awhile back, was we were trying to get one of our licenses applied to a user. Because it was a user who had a license and we had previously removed it, then we wanted to give it back to them, and for some reason TeamViewer kept saying that the user already existed. We were like, "Well, no, that person left, and now, they are back again. " However, we threw them an email, and they fixed it. They said, “Try it now,” and it worked.

There were a couple of other vendors that we looked at, but we just liked TeamViewer. One of the guys that I work with had used this solution before, so it was sort of his suggestion. He had tried it at his place that he had worked before. and said, “We ought to try this, because we'll really liked it." So, we got its demo and had it for a couple of days. Then, I said, “I'm sold. This stuff is awesome.”

I haven't found anything else nor has anybody has pointed me in another direction saying, "Oh, you should use this instead, as this is way better." 

It is easy to use. It is a no-brainer.

The only access is from the IT department to the machines. Users don't utilize anything to remote control their own machines. That's typically an IT function.

We really don't need any type of tracking.

The most valuable feature has been the ability to give control to others for support purposes.

This solution could be improved by offering more flexibility in terms of usage.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution.

We have received good support from the customer service team although at times we have waited a long time in the queue. 

Neutral

The initial setup is simple and straightforward.

We use a paid version. The free version has some limitations and you're not able to make voice calls.

Not every solution is 100% and there's always room for improvement. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

On-premises

We primarily use the solution for remote access.

I used it mostly for Cisco remote support activities.

It’s so great for when you need to provide remote support. It allows us to troubleshoot in real-time.

The configuration and structure are good.

It doesn’t break down easily.

The product installs easily.

It is stable and can scale well.

The dashboards they have are good.

The solution isn’t expensive at all.

I don’t see any areas where improvement is needed. It’s been helpful overall.

I’ve been using the solution for two or three years.

It’s a stable product. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash on me.

I’ve never had any issues with scaling the solution.

About three or four people use the solution in my organization. While we don’t have plans to increase usage, we might down the line.

We’ve never really contacted technical support. I can’t really speak to how helpful they are as I don’t have much experience with them.

The solution offers a very easy initial setup. It’s not complex at all.

The licensing on offer is reasonable.

I would recommend the solution to others. I’ve used it a lot and found it to be helpful.

I’d rate it eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

This is a remote access tool. Usually, we just use it for our support team, to help them support our customers.

The interface is good, and it is easy to use.

The document control is quite good.

It’s easy to implement.

The product is scalable and very stable.

Sometimes it lags. They need to optimize it a bit. AnyDesk, for example, works faster.

We’ve been using the solution for five years.

The solution has worked flawlessly. It’s stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches.

It’s a scalable solution. The product is easy to expand.

More of our usage is coming from support, and we are about 18 support engineers we have.

We have not really used technical support. We haven’t come to a point where we have needed to seek help from TeamViewer.

We tried the other remote access tools like AnyDesk. We switched due to a management decision. We looked at enterprise options and user manageability. We wanted to monitor our licenses and also the usage we have. AnyDesk worked fast. However, sometimes the video quality is bad.

The initial setup is very straightforward. The instructions related to the implementation are straightforward.

The installation itself is also fast. It only takes two to three minutes.

We handled it ourselves. We didn’t need any help from anyone outside. We didn’t use integrators or consultants.

I don’t have any visibility in terms of licensing costs.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using TeamViewer to support our users. It is used for technical support.

TeamViewer has a good interface.

I have been using TeamViewer for approximately three years.

The stability of TeamViewer is good, but it could be better.

TeamViewer is scalable.

We have approximately 200 people using this solution in my organization.

I used technical support when purchasing the solution and they were fine.

We used Anydesk in parallel with TeamViewer.

The initial setup of TeamViewer was straightforward. It only takes approximately five minutes to complete.

We have a permanent license and the price is reasonable. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate TeamViewer an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for remote access. It's for sharing the desktop with some other user. If I were to remotely access someone's machine, then I would use TeamViewer.

It is very easy to configure and very easy to use.

The implementation is quite straightforward. 

It's stable.

It's my understanding the resolution can scale.

The user interface and dashboard are good. 

There are no limitations that I can see. It isn't missing any features.

I can't recollect, however, they should, if they haven't already, add audio to their product. I'm not sure if they provide good quality audio alongside screensharing. 

I've used the solution for about a year. 

It's very, very stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash ort freeze. it's reliable and the performance is good. 

It seems to be scalable, however, people just use it one to one. 

In my company, I just use it. I don't know of anyone else int eh company that leverages it. 

I've never contacted technical support. I can't speak to how responsive or helpful they are. 

I have not used anything else. I've only used this product.

You do need to install an application. It's easy to configure and install during the implementation process. The entire process takes five to ten minutes. 

I handled the setup by myself. I did not need the assistance of integrators or consultants. 

I don't have any insight into how much the solution costs. 

I'd recommedn the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I found it pretty useful.

Public Cloud