TeamViewer Reviews

TeamViewer is for desktop support. It's for giving remote support to users. If I was a member of tech support, for example, I could access your desktop remotely to see your screen, keyboard and mouse. I'd be able to access it from anywhere in the world and I can control it just as if I was sitting in front of your system.

The solution allows for remote tech support that has the capability for us to see a user's screens. We can do this from anywhere in the world. We don't need to be in the room with a user to help them.

The solution offers a very helpful tech support application. If you need help, the tech support can use the application to help you right on your desktop.

They have these options of TeamViewer such as Augmented Reality so that you can draw on it and you can ease somebody into a process, or assist somebody in doing some actions. They can also integrate that into the Pilot TeamViewer. Right now, they use it as a separate thing. They originally introduced it under Microsoft Hello and it should be integrated into the TeamViewer Pilot version soon.

The product is quite stable. The performance is good. 

We've found that the scalability is excellent.

They should release features such as Augmented Reality into both plain and standard versions of TeamViewer. Nowadays, you have to wait for another release, or another product version while Augmented Reality features should just be integrated into the standard version of TeamViewer.

The product could be less expensive. There are many similar products that are free these days.

I've been using the solution for well over ten years. It's been more than a decade. I have a lot of experience with it.

The solution has very good stability. The performance and reliability are very high. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability of the solution is very good. A company shouldn't have any issues with scaling.

Just the administrators, like myself, have access to the solution. Everybody else gets support through the product via us.

We do plan to continue to use the service.

We've never actually reached out the technical support. I can't speak to their level of helpfulness or responsiveness when it comes to troubleshooting issues. 

I have previously used TightVNC and UltraVNC. UltraVNC was one of my favorites. Most of the free open-source products are quite good.

The installation process is pretty plain and simple. It's not complex at all. A company shouldn't have any issues with the implementation.

It's simple software to install. There is no cloud or anything. The ID is maintained by the cloud, however. When we install the product, it also creates a unique ID. That unique ID is maintained in the cloud maybe, however, we don't do anything with that as they maintain it. The ID is unique to your system.

There is tech support application as well which is just small and easy. You just need to download it and it works for the one time whenever you want it.

There isn't a need for dedicated maintenance. It's pretty simple to use.

There is a subscription option for licensing the product.

The price could always be a bit less.

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate the solution at an eight. We've been very happy with the solution over a number of years. It's always been helpful.

I would recommend the solution, however, I'd be happier with the product overall if they could lower their prices.

It allows us to access some of our remote sites, especially if we're having internal issues such as a VPN tunnel dropped from site-to-site. We can still connect to the local machines at the different offices as long as we still have an internet connection, and we can log in and troubleshoot networking issues remotely.

TeamViewer is installed specifically on our desktop machines. We do also use some laptops that are on Windows 10, and there are a couple of Mac OS X machines we've used to remotely connect.

It allows for quick, easy access to our remote sites. It increases our ability to troubleshoot, as needed, at critical times.

In addition, some department managers have people split between sites. For example, part of operations is out here in Olathe, Kansas, and the other part is in Oklahoma. They're able to hold team meetings and present through the TeamViewer meeting sessions. The HR department is also able to hold meetings with the people here and those in other offices.

We've been using the team meetings, the collaboration portion. It's pretty simple to share and presents screens during team meetings.

We also use it a lot for remote site assistance. We've set up our internal authentication for unattended access to our remote sites. That makes it very easy and convenient to remotely connect with our users and our client machines whenever we need to. It's set as a direct, secure connection. As long as the station has internet access, we can see it and it makes remote support very simple. 

As far as the security goes, we've decided that it does set up a pretty good, secure tunnel from point to point.

Overall, it's pretty simple. It does the jobs that we need it to do.

It's not the program itself that's an issue, but there is a need for some better documentation on how to use the web portal Management Console. That seems to be a bit lacking in directions, if you aren't paying attention and you don't know what to do. Better documentation would make it a little bit easier to set things up in different groups and share groups between people.

We've been using it for 14 to 15 months.

It's a very stable program. We haven't noticed any issues with it dropping in and out of service.

It scales. Since we have the corporate license, we're not limited to any number of machines. We install it on all our devices. The scalability is fine.

Between people who have a laptop or a desktop, and some of them have both, about 100 people utilize it. It's the company standard.

I have not used their technical support.

We were only utilizing internal RDP, for the most part. TeamViewer is about five times faster for remote assistance.

The setup is pretty simple. It is a small install-MSI. You can either install it through group policy or push it out through your normal deployment methods onto Windows machines. You set up the services during the deployment for it to connect to the main account, and you can share different computer groups, for the different site locations, from the main account to any of the other admin accounts. You can show who has default access and what groups are already tied into it. It's pretty straightforward.

Our deployment took a couple of hours for 120 machines. We deployed the MSI out through normal deployment processes.

It has been useful and it has increased our productivity by some 400 percent. It's helped us a lot.

We have the corporate license. It's extremely cheap.

For what we utilize it for it's not a super-expensive license. It was about the same or a little bit cheaper than LogMeIn but it's more stable and a better program for what we need in our company.

We looked into VNC and LogMeIn. TeamViewer was a much simpler, easier way to connect up. It's a fast and simple setup and it just works.

The product is simple to set up and install and use.

We use it for interacting with other employees. They'll have TeamViewer, but they're working from home in another state. We link up our computers and, that way, it's almost like we're sitting next to each other. We can see what the other is doing on his computer.

We do use the technical support mode sometimes, which is the same thing as collaboration. You just log in to somebody's computer and fix that computer remotely.

It's smoother. It's faster. It stays on. It seems to have a really good connection and it's consistent.

Once we got it for the company, the IT manager deployed it and started using it for technical support. He doesn't use it a whole lot, but when he does need it, it really helps him. He can get in there and see what problem another computer is having.

The best feature is the remote access and being able to control another person's computer when you're showing them something, or teaching them how to do something during training, or fixing a problem they're having. Also, if I'm at home or even on the other side of the country like I am right now, I can log in to my computer at work.

On slow internet connections, TeamViewer works much better than other products. It seems to deal with slow internet connections better. If we are in a remote location and we want to access our computers at work, or a server, we can just log in to TeamViewer and it seems to connect.

There's a lot more you can do with it as far as collaboration and team co-operation go. You can get a lot of people on it. We're not utilizing it for that. For example, if the boss wants to hold a meeting, and have everybody join the meeting, he can do so and have different people do presentations. They can do their presentations and interact on one computer. If the boss is showing something and he says, "Well, take over and you show me what you think," that person can take over the cursor and start running it as if he's sitting right there in the meeting. I don't see other products doing that very well. 

With the other products that we're currently using, somebody has to say, "Well, let me share my screen and then they have to start sharing their screen and they have to turn it over to somebody else. Everybody has to load the program and get on the same page on their own computers, rather than just switching the control of the presentation to somebody, wherever that person happens to. With TeamViewer, they can take over the presentation right on the same computer that the presenter was using and give their presentation without having to switch screens. I love that part.

I've been using TeamViewer for a couple of years, but we just got the licenses in June.

The scalability has great potential. We could be using this for a lot more people in our company.

Our company has free products in use, like Microsoft Teams. The problem with Teams is that it's not as clear. It locks up and sometimes just doesn't work as well. But it's free, and everybody's using it, so it's hard to get people to move to something that's not free.

Although TeamViewer is a little more dependable and works much better, the cost is high. I can have a meeting online and have 35 people on it, as long as they have installed TeamViewer or log in to the website. They can all get on and they don't have to pay. But since everybody is using another product, and they've been using it for years, it's hard to scale up and get them convinced to use something different.

I've used the vendor's technical support a few times. They're responsive and they took care of my concerns. They showed me how to do things correctly. They were really good, easy to work with.

The setup is fairly easy. The basic connection is easy. When I started using the different services, I didn't know how to go in and start up a meeting. It seems to have a lot of features that have a little bit of a learning curve. I don't have time to learn all those features, so I just use the basic stuff.

On average, deployment takes 30 minutes.

I deployed it myself, as did my co-worker who is also a developer.

We haven't seen ROI. We're using it strictly for IT and technical, internal use.

I do use it a lot for remote accessing of my computer at work. I don't have to do anything, such as turn my work computer on. It just logs right in and I can start using it. I can also log in to other peoples' computers. All you have to do is hit a button and say, "Yes, allow me in." It makes it so simple to connect. It's worth the money, even though it's a little bit expensive.

It does what I need it to do but I think it's expensive. It wasn't easy for me to get approval from the company to get it. Not a whole lot of people in our company use it, but the five or six of us who do use it get a lot out of it.

It's costing us about $700 a year, per license. For the company it was $2,000, and that was on a deal. I think it would have been $2,200 or $2,300. 

I also got it for a friend who was working remotely. At the end of his year's subscription to TeamViewer, he wasn't using it much anymore. He was using something else. He called them to tell them that he did not want to continue with it for another year, but they said, "No, you didn't give us the 30-day buffer at the end of the year which is required to cancel for the coming year, so there's no way you can cancel now." They wouldn't let him out of the contract. He didn't read the fine print. We then read the fine print it did say that you have to give that number of days' prior notice before you cancel at the end of the year. If you don't give them that prior notice, you're stuck. I didn't like that.

I've looked at other companies that provide the same type of thing and their pricing is about the same.

I tried using WebEx and another product as well. They didn't work as smoothly as TeamViewer. We've tried using Microsoft Teams. Using that, you can take over and control the other person's cursor, but it's really cumbersome. When I use TeamViewer and get it up and going, it's almost like I'm just sitting in front of that computer. Aside from the couple of icons and menus that are off to the side, you can't even tell that you're not using the actual computer.

WebEx is great for doing meetings. TeamViewer may be doing great for doing that but I haven't really used it for that.

TeamViewer is much better for doing remote access than WebEx. For the stuff that I use every day, TeamViewer works better than other products, especially when I want to take over control of another computer. The other products that I've tried are not nearly as good when I do that. TeamViewer is the best.

The biggest thing I've learned from using TeamViewer is that you shouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to find other products to save a little bit of money, when you already have a product that you know is working great. Don't waste your time. Get the product you know is working well, one you have confidence in and a little bit of experience in. Don't try to cut corners. I spend a lot of time trying to find other products because the company doesn't want to spend a few thousand dollars for just me and one other person, but when the IT person got on, then he was able to get them to use it.

In my opinion, it's the best remote access product on the market. The service is great. The product is great.

I am using it more for meetings with my colleagues who happen to be at another worksite. I am using the meeting functionality more often now, compared to the remote-control functionality which I used more often previously.

I use it on a Windows PC.

It's pretty easy to use. Just key in an ID and password and connect. For meetings, just enter the meeting ID and connect.

If were to I put myself in the seat of a small business owner, I would prefer TeamViewer to be more of a pay-once-and-own-it solution, rather than paying via a subscription model (although I am using the free version). Only annual subscriptions are available. It makes paying for it the first time seem a little daunting.

It also renews automatically, annually, and you are only allowed to cancel it by applying for the cancellation 28 days in advance through a support ticket. They should really tend to that.

I have been using TeamViewer for a very long time. Previously, I used it as a personal tool to log in to my parents' or friends' computers to help them troubleshoot issues. About a year ago, I started looking for an alternative to using Skype for video meetings. In the end, I found TeamViewer’s meeting solution to be pretty smooth and suitable for use in China. I have been using that functionality, occasionally, for about a year.

The solution is very stable. 

I haven't used technical support.

We were previously trying to use Skype for Business for meetings. It did not work very well in China so we had to find something else.

In my opinion, the setup was not that complicated. I found it more difficult setting up the local Chinese version of Skype for Business. When I got the company to install TeamViewer instead, they found it much easier to register and connect.

It took just a few minutes of downloading, installation, and registration on the site and it was good to go.

The price is reasonable. However, it doesn't seem that anybody in my company wants
to spend.

My advice is to try it for free first.

For security reasons, we do not have an IT department that connects to the main IT infrastructure in our parent companies. So we have to come up with our own solutions at minimal costs.

At the moment, I only have three close colleagues using it in my organization. They are all on the technical side. We discuss engineering solutions and procedures during our meetings.

I have always felt that TeamViewer is extremely capable software and, in my many years of using its remote connection service, it has never let me down.

We use TeamViewer for support, controlling our ~2,500 end-user computers and our ~60 servers.  Our environment is primarily macOS, with about 95% of end-users on Macs, but our servers split between Windows and macOS.  We also have some digital signage devices that run Linux, and we use TeamViewer to control them as well.

We ran TeamViewer concurrently with LogMeIn for about year as we evaluated TeamViewer as a replacement.  TeamViewer's superior remote quality (especially in low-bandwidth situations) and ease of mass deployment, combined with LogMeIn's serious and longstanding bugs led us to recently discontinue LogMeIn in favor of TeamViewer.

Coming from LogMeIn, TeamViewer's remote control quality, Host reliability, file-transfer capabilities and ability to support multiple simultaneous controllers on a Host have been a great improvement.

TeamViewer's simultaneous-controller/tech licensing is better for us than LogMeIn's device-based licensing, because we don't have to worry as much about maintaining devices in the list as a driver of licensing costs.

TeamViewer's cross-platform nature is important to us, as we are about 95% macOS, and our IT organization is all-Mac, so we often use our Macs to control Windows machines.

TeamViewer is very fast, with very high fidelity and visual quality, in both high- and low-bandwidth situations, far better than our experience with LogMeIn.

TeamViewer's support for multiple Controllers on a Host is very convenient, allowing multiple techs to collaborate to help an end-user or to look at a server.  With LogMeIn, additional techs attempting to control a Host would either just mysteriously not be able to connect (there was no message or other indicator that the Host was already being controlled by someone else), or they would accidentally kick off the first Controller on the Host, which was inefficient and confusing.

Mass-deployment options for Hosts are excellent, making it easy to mass deploy on both macOS and Windows, and you can pre-configure the Hosts with settings and custom branding as needed.  Having said that, the experience with individual installations is nowhere as slick as LogMeIn, however: installing TeamViewer manually and getting everything configured is much more annoying and time-consuming than LogMeIn.

TeamViewer's file-transfer features are useful and comprehensive, with two options:  1) a drag-and-drop transfer mechanism for small files, and 2) a full-fledged file-transfer dialog that allows file tree browsing on both the Host and Controller.

TeamViewer is also free to try for personal use; as a result of that, myself and many of my staff were already familiar with the product from our experience supporting friends and family. That feature directly led to us being able to test TeamViewer extensively in everyday use, and as we looked for alternatives to LogMeIn, our familiarity with TeamViewer from personal use helped. LogMeIn previously offered the same free personal-use license but they discontinued that offering, which in my opinion was a very shortsighted move...and one that made me appreciate TeamViewer even more.

While TeamViewer has some great benefits, there are also some significant challenges and bugs. The biggest problem in our environment is that it's difficult, or sometimes even impossible, to properly manage granular access to a Host. It's a huge problem that mostly affects the Mac platform, but even with Windows Hosts the entire concept of how access to Hosts is configured centrally is a bit of a mess, especially compared to the true elegance of how LogMeIn worked.

With LogMeIn, we could centrally assign techs to a Group of Hosts, and those Techs could control that entire group of Hosts.  Even a one-off contractor could be temporarily or permanently given access to a Host, just using their email address. In addition to Group-based assignments, you could assign additional Hosts individually to a tech, so that they could control a single additional Host in addition to the main Host Group(s) that they had access to. It was extremely elegant, easy ton configure, made instant sense, and worked perfectly.  For example, I could have a group called "Servers" in LogMeIn, and I could give my infrastructure staff access to all of those servers. If I also wanted one of my Developers to be able to access a couple of those servers, I just gave them access to those individual Hosts in LogMeIn Central.

By comparison, TeamViewer is a complete mess. The way they do it is a total nightmare, and it does not work well. In TeamViewer, Techs can be given access to Host Groups...but a TeamViewer Host can't be in more than one Group...and Groups is the only way that you can give access to a user.  So the kind of granular control, giving access to Group(s) but also being able to give access to individual Hosts, is completely missing.  The workarounds for this are messy:  you can either split off any Hosts that may need individual control by other users into separate Groups, or you can have the Techs that need individual access manually add the Hosts to their "My Computers (Local)" Group in their own client, having to know the Host ID, etc.

In addition, the administration of Groups and access to Hosts in general is fragmented and confusing, with strange limitations. For example, let's say one of my departments needs to create a Group of Hosts. Only the individual tech who created the Group can control it: no one else can change the name or make other changes...only that tech that created it and  therefore "owns" it can. TeamViewer's "best practice" recommendation is to use a generic "Master" account to create and manage all Groups, having to login with that Master account rather than your own individual account, which is bad for many reasons, including making MFA more difficult and it has serious security and management implications.  

By contrast in LogMeIn, when a privileged administrator creates a Group, it just belongs to the organization, other similarly-privileged administrators can manage the Group, other techs can see it, and it all makes total, elegant sense.  Hosts can be assigned to multiple Groups or individual Techs, etc: it's extremely flexible and straightforward.

TeamViewer's macOS Host is unfortunately not up to scratch with the Windows Host: it's missing some extremely important features. I sincerely hope that the TeamViewer macOS development team is going to address the problems in the near future.

For example, you can't configure multiple "unattended control" passwords on the macOS Host, to give Host access to different departments or individual users but using different passwords. The Windows Host, by contrast, allows multiple unattended control passwords. Another way to accomplish this on the Windows Host is via Windows OS authentication, allowing users with either Windows local or central Active Directory (AD) credentials to authenticate to TeamViewer. This feature is also missing on the macOS Host:  there's no way to authenticate using local macOS accounts (which LogMeIn allowed), nor can you authenticate using AD credentials, even if the Mac is bound to AD.  So on the macOS Host, there's exactly one unattended-control password to control that Host, which is a big problem in my environment with giving granular control to server Hosts.

There is a workaround, but it's completely obnoxious: TeamViewer has an automatic Host-generated password, one that usually changes after every session. It's designed for the local user who's using the Host machine to be able to give a tech a one-time password for a single support session, and the password changes the next time. There is a Host setting, however, that instructs the Host to keep that random password the same after each session, so I can use that as a bad hack to allow individual techs to control Hosts where they shouldn't know the main unattended-control passsword (after they add the Host manually in their "My Computers (Local)" Group....sigh).  Unfortunately, this workaround breaks when you restart the Host or relaunch TeamVIewer on the Host, as even with the "Don't Change" setting for the random password, it still changes whenever TeamViewer Host launches.  So after every update or reboot, we have to distribute the new random password to some techs...time-consuming and messy.

Another big issue with the macOS Host is that it does not have a method of avoiding locking the screen at the end of a session. The setting to lock the Host's screen after a control session seems fairly random, and if the controlling tech forgets to manually disable that "feature" during the session, the user (or server) gets the screen locked in their face when the tech finishes.  That causes a lot of problems, especially with some of our servers that need to remain unlocked and by annoying the heck out of users.  On the Windows Host, there is an Advanced setting to instruct the Host to never lock its screen after a remote session, but that setting is missing on the macOS Host.

There are some miscellaneous features missing on the macOS Host, like auto-hiding the TeamViewer panel and preventing accidental quitting of TeamViewer. These features were deemed necessary (and they are) in the past and thus were implemented on the Windows Host: they should also be available on the macOS Host.

Another issue concerns Windows virtual machines. Unfortunately, TeamViewer has historically depended on the Host's MAC address as part of generating the unique TeamViewer ID, because the MAC address was a fairly immutable thing back in the day. However modern virtual machines (VMs) have dynamic MAC addresses, which means that suddenly a Host gets a new TeamViewer ID, and you have no idea what it is, with no way to control the VM.  TeamViewer Tech Support tried to help with some workarounds to try to assign static TeamViewer IDs, but none were successful.  Their recommendation is to manually manage MAC addresses on VMs, which is a non-starter in clustered environments where dynamic MAC addressing is needed.  TeamViewer needs to stop depending on MAC addresses as a part of generating the TeamViewer ID:  LogMeIn figured it out and so TeamViewer should be able to.

A final concern is the accidental renaming of Hosts with an unattended-control password.  As we've increased the use of TeamViewer, we've found that our techs accidentally rename Hosts in the background while they think they're entering the unattended password for that Host. The Host actually gets renamed with the unattended control password, which is obviously a huge security issue.  We're trying to be mindful of that bug to prevent it from happening, but it's extremely problematic.

TeamViewer is very reliable. Our major problem with LogMeIn was that it would just turn itself off randomly on Hosts, and LogMeIn Support could never explain for fix it... we literally tried for about two years with them. When we implemented TeamViewer, it was very  refreshing to regain a reliable solution that we can always count on working.

TeamViewer seems very stable. It doesn't just crash or randomly turn itself off in our experience so far.

The central TeamViewer service does have issues from time to time, but the longest we've seen it last is a few hours, and it seems to be mostly in the middle of the night, and they're all over it, including transparently showing the status of all services on the TeamViewer Status website.

TeamViewer seems to scale well in one sense, being easily mass-deployable to thousands of Hosts.  

But the badly-designed Groups and kludgy nature of the central management, combined with significant missing features on the macOS Host and lack of support for dynamic MAC addresses on VMs is a problem with scalability in a complex organization, and TeamViewer should address these major problems ASAP...right now they're just lucky that the other available cross-platform remote control solutions actually suck more than they do. ;-)

Technical support is excellent; they do a nice job and have high-quality support techs. The times that I've submitted tickets or called in, it's always been somebody who knows what they're talking about, friendly and knowledgeable. They can't make up for some of the flaws in the product, but they do the best they can with the product that they have, trying workarounds and even testing things in their lab while we're on the phone with them.  It's a pretty impressive support group.

We came to TeamViewer from LogMeIn and, before that, we had an older product called Timbuktu. 

LogMeIn's main issue that caused us to switch was that the Hosts would just randomly turn themselves off:  the icon would grey out and the LogMeIn Control Panel would show that the Host was off.  This of course disabled access to Hosts in a random and widespread manner, and troubleshooting with LogMeIn Support over the period of a year resulted in no fixes or workarounds, and it was causing enormous problems in our environment.

LogMeIn also did not allow multiple controllers on a Host, had no file-transfer capabilities (in the affordable "LogMeIn Central" version that we licensed), was licensed based on the number of devices, and had annoyances with Control/Command-Tab mapping from Controller to Host.  These weren't showstoppers, but they helped to push us elsewhere.

TeamViewer deployment is fairly straightforward:  knowledgeable techs can configure Host settings, brand the Host, and mass-deploy it pretty easily. Manual setup on individual Hosts is very clunky and time-consuming compared to LogMeIn, however.

We deployed it very quickly. We had not made a final decision on LogMeIn until very close to when our LogMeIn's licenses were expiring. So very quickly, within a couple of days, they were able to push out the TeamViewer Host to all of our devices.

Initial setup and ongoing management of Groups and other central management tasks is messy, time-consuming, inelegant and makes no sense.  TeamViewer needs to take a hard look at their hodgepodge and take a good long peek at how LogMeIn Central works and....be more like LogMeIn in central management.

We evaluated and deployed completely in-house.

ROI-wise, the savings from licensing have more than been eaten up by the soft costs involved in dealing with and working around TeamViewer’s feature deficiencies on the macOS Host, the terrible central management design, and the lack of support for dynamic MAC addresses.  If the TeamViewer developers get their act together and improve the product in those areas, the ROI will improve significantly.

Ultimately, however, even with all of its warts and problems, it's still the best, most reliable and most affordable remote control product, at least for our environment.

TeamViewer pricing is reasonable. 

It's licensed by simultaneous controlling tech, rather than by the device. I like that because previously it was always a struggle to keep the device list maintained. If we got rid of a device and we didn't remove LogMeIn properly, the device would remain in our LogMeIn Central account and use a license.

That's not a problem with TeamViewer's licensing, plus you can have as many techs as you want, but it monitors their simultaneous remote control usage with Hosts.  It can be a little tricky in the sense that you have to plan for the maximum simultaneous usage during busy times, and initially I didn't purchase enough licenses, but when we started hitting the limit, TeamViewer detected that and sent emails notifying us, then our sales rep very quickly added another license (allowing us to pay later via purchase order) to get us back in business.

In our environment, TeamViewer turns out to be less expensive than LogMeIn, at least so far.  We’re currently saving about 30 percent on licensing costs, and we don’t have to worry about maintaining/pruning the list of machines in the LogMeIn. TeamViewer's automatic emails telling us that we've hit the simultaneous limit includes stats on how many times it has happened recently, which helps in deciding whether to purchase an additional license.

This type of licensing does have a downside:  with LogMeIn, my staff were accused to controlling a client or a server and staying connected as needed, sometimes for hours if they were doing maintenance on a server or assisting a user with an intermittent issue.  But with TeamViewer, that chews up a simultaneous-use license and drives additional licensing costs, so we all have to remember to disconnect from Hosts.

We tested a number of other remote control solutions hoping for one that would stand out, because of the problems we had seen during our testing with TeamViewer on macOS. Unfortunately, they were all actually worse than TeamViewer.

In the end, before moving to TeamViewer, we evaluated LogMeIn, ConnectWise Control, Royal TSX, Devolutions, Dameware Remote, Goverlan Reach, and Radmin.

Make sure that you're okay with the simultaneous tech licensing. In my environment that works out great but I'm not sure if that's appropriate for all environments. And, if you have macOS Hosts, just understand what you're getting into and carefully map out how you're going to give granular control for Hosts if you have techs that need to control the same Host from different departments/groups.

In terms of how many end-users we can support with one tech,TeamViewer is about the same as LogMeIn. TeamViewer did increase efficiency in multiple ways, but at the cost of some significant management headaches because of the multiple issues mentioned above.  So it may be pretty much a wash, at least until they fix some of the issues.

I wanted something which I could use to control other computers over the internet, and then I found TeamViewer, and it worked great. I can control any customer's PC right from my computer with ease.

TeamViewer improved my business because I can help my customer directly from here in very less time.

• Ability to share any files among others
• Easy to use, and has a clean user interface
• Value for money
• Ability to add any TeamViewer ID.

There is nothing to improve; TeamViewer already works perfectly. But still, I think the price factor for small business.

The primary use case is remote support.

It saves trips to customer sites, which saves time. I am able to get in there remotely and fix things. Before having this tool, it involved having to touch the customer's PC, which required me to either talk to somebody on the phone through doing the process or go out to the customer's locations and install it myself.

I can grant permission to my organization so a person must be signed into TeamViewer if they're a member of my organization in order to be able to access that machine. In the event that a customer needs access, I can go ahead and define a policy either at an individual machine level for an individual user that we create, or we could conversely say somebody in the company needs to access all machines, which is great. We can go ahead and add that user to the access policy for all machines, so it is definitely robust like that.

It works well on a Linux laptop or desktop. Linux support has been huge for me because that is what I use for my computer systems. To be able to have something which works properly on the operating system that I prefer is great. I like to use the remote file transfer on occasion, but the remote desktop access is my number one most used feature.

It has good multi-tenant support. As an IT service provider, it has the configuration options required to make it work well across multiple customers, as it is highly configurable.

Its branding has been valuable for me.

Since TeamViewer version 13 introduced a Native Linux rather than running the Windows version through an emulation layer, that has been great. However, certain features didn't make it into the initial two releases. So far, the Linux version no longer has support for meetings. It wasn't a feature, and very often a group that we put together recently was looking for a way to do online meetings. I thought, "I have a subscription to TeamViewer that includes that." I do, but that function no longer works in Linux version. I am sort of waiting for that to come back. 

Support for mobile devices from Linux has been missing since the Native client was rolled out. This was a nice option, especially when trying to walk somebody who was struggling to understand something on their phone. I don't do a whole lot of support for mobile devices, but if I could just direct them to the Google Play Store to go grab the TeamViewer app, they could give me a number to connect to and I could see the screen with them.

I'm very grateful that there is a Native Linux client. That is a step forward and in the right direction. It shows TeamViewer's commitment to the Linux platform. I am very pleased about it, but there are some things that I used to have when the Linux version was just the Windows version packaged with the necessary emulation layers to make it work. I miss some of those features which used to be there prior to the Native Linux version. Hopefully, they will make it back into the product in the not too distant future.

It would be nice to see some of those other features that we used to have come back, using them on Windows and Mac.

I can no longer connect via web links, which is not the end of the world, but it's a mild annoyance. I used to be able to click something from my browser, then boom, there you go. At the time, it was the old TeamViewer that was based on the Windows software. I had to take some initial steps to configure an environment where those links worked, but once Linux was up, it was no different than on Windows. I could be on the web or in a remote monitoring platform, and if I needed to connect with one of my client devices. I would select from there, and say, "Connect to TeamViewer," and it would jump right in. I can't do that anymore.

The product and platform work well. That is why I have stay with them so long. The stability has typically been good.

Scalability is hard to say, because I am the lowest scaled out degree of utilization. The clients that I use it on are relatively small. I am the only person using the tool at my company, as the founding member.

I am using it fairly extensively. It is on almost every customer computer that I support. Anyone who has a maintenance agreement with me will have a copy of it. At this time, that is under 100 customers.

I have done work for people who have used it in larger environments: Hundreds upon hundreds of teams running it. So, I have seen it perform well in a huge environment. I have seen it perform well in a large, multitenant environment. 

I try to go to the TeamViewer forums before contacting their technical support. My interactions with the technical support has always positive.

The improvements since the Native release of the Linux version have been great. They have been good about addressing the most critical issues first. There was one that left many of us that work on Linux and support Windows machines, particularly in enterprise environments, having to press Control-Alt-Delete to log into a system. When the Linux client first came out, there was no way to send Control-Alt-Delete. How do you miss something that important? They were actually very quick in getting that fixed and rolling out a version that supported that.

They have been doing some support for ARM, which is sort of cool. That is the chip that runs the Raspberry Pi. While I don't know if it is all ARM devices, specifically Raspberry Pi support for Linux is something that you can get from TeamViewer, which is beneficial.

With Raspberry Pi out there with TeamViewer on it, you are not having to kick somebody at the customer site off of their computer in order to get access to a desktop, then fire up a browser to look at somethings locally. Therefore, it is nice to see support for it out there.

I came to be familiar with TeamViewer when I was trying to find a way to access Take Control from Linux. Instead, I found out it could be done with TeamViewer. That is what made me aware of TeamViewer and made me discover firsthand that it was a great solution. 

I didn't replace another service. While I have used other technologies in the past, like VNC, they don't do exactly what TeamViewer does. If you wanted to use VNC remotely, you'd need to get your traffic through the firewall and take care of securing or encrypting that traffic yourself. Thus, it is not really in the same league of software. You have to bring your own security. With TeamViewer, you are encrypted out-of-the-box.

The initial setup was straightforward. I use the corporate plan now and have the installer pushed from my remote monitoring platform, so it's ridiculously simple these days.

Nowadays, the installation happens automatically, so it doesn't take any time at all. Basically, when I put my remote monitoring and management tool on the customer machine, it takes care of pulling it down, setting it up, and joining it to my account all on its own.

You can easily deploy a Raspberry Pi with Linux on it at a customer site with TeamViewer on it. Now, you have a machine at a customer site that you can get on it if you needed to use a web browser to look at things on the network, like a printer scanner, or multi function device interface. If your security policy was so you could only manage the firewall from inside of the LAN, then I tend to have some other methods for keeping the firewall secure. Still, this is something where there is a real value-add to it.

I don't have good numbers due to the small sample size.

The pricing and licensing are sort of high. Having been an early adopter of the subscription model, and primarily because version 11 was the last licensed version that I owned, when I was looking at 12, I was also looking at upgrading to corporate. I called TeamViewer sales and talked with them. At that point, subscription was a relatively new option. It was not even mentioned on the website at that time. However, it was pretty easy for me to look at my historical TeamViewer purchases in my accounting software and see that I was buying a new TeamViewer license every time a new version came out. So, switching to a subscription model wasn't going to be anything different than what I was already doing, so renewing the subscription every year was not any different than buying the upgraded version every year. There was good incentive to move from the middle tier to the corporate tier.

LogMeIn started this rush to higher prices whenever they got bought out and chopping off lower-end tiers. A lot of people in my industry had been using them for a long time. I never cared for their solution. I always thought it felt clunky and didn't think it worked well, but plenty of people did like it. I don't know if it was the pricing that was the primary draw, or what, but there were many people in my industry who were leaving LogMeIn after their 400 percent price hikes.

Take the time to learn what TeamViewer can do. Take advantage of some of the features that it offers. Learn some of the best ways to leverage its capabilities.

I have some Linux test virtual machines that I do connect to using TeamViewer. In the past, I connected to Android devices, but that functionality is currently missing from Linux.

TeamViewer had some negative press a few years back when some people had their accounts breached. TeamViewer was being used by bad actors to commit malicious acts on people's PCs, but that was not TeamViewer's fault. It was bad implementation by users. Despite the fact it wasn't TeamViewer's fault, TeamViewer still went above their obligation and helped make it easier for people to properly secure their accounts. I think they did a great job with that.

Increased TeamViewer usage would be hand-in-hand with increasing our customer base, so I both want and need a bigger customer base. Part of my standard support software stack is TeamViewer, so every new customer PC device which is added to the support contract would be one more deployment of a TeamViewer Host. So, I definitely plan to increase TeamViewer deployment.

Accessing unattended servers, Mac, Linux, Windows, Raspberry.

Unattended access with "single" login.

The price is a killer for the amount I normally use it.