Zoom Reviews

Zoom has better connectivity and the failure ratio is less compared to Webex and GoToWebinar. The base infrastructure is robust. The latency is very good. That is why the tool is pricey. The vendor provides hosting and poll features. Zoom is a complete product. It has a good security layer. Every platform has its own security layer to ensure that the data and broadcast are restricted and relayed to only the registered participants. Anyone can easily handle the solution. It is easy to learn.

The solution is pricier than its competitors.

We have been using Zoom for internal and client calls.

Since we work with clients, we have around 100 to 200 users.

We contacted the support team for some activation with Brevo. We wanted to integrate the Brevo platform with events or webinars. The support structure is good. The team replies within a short duration and tries to answer our queries.

We extensively depend on GoToWebinar and Webex. Zoom is a little costlier than GoToWebinar and Webex. Zoom and Webex have very good security layers. RingCentral has a very good suite including in-house messaging and IP phone call features that enable users to get a private number for their organization.

It would be better if people started with Webex. If we need to do more than 10 to 15 webinars a month, we can choose Zoom. If we have fewer events and one or two webinars in a month, we can choose GoToWebinar or other tools like RingCentral. Zoom is better for the internal purposes of a company. Webex or other platforms are better suited for external clients. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

There is a large energy company that only uses Zoom. When I have meetings with them, they are always called via Zoom. I wouldn't initiate it; I need to have a Zoom account. I don't use many features besides setting up a meeting.

When I had meetings, I used to take notes or record them, but then someone still had to transcribe everything. Now, I'm fascinated by OtterPilot. It automatically transcribes meetings, summarizes them, and identifies action items. I've been recommending it to everyone I know. It is a tool that you can use during Zoom or Teams calls. It takes real-time notes and then sends a summary and action items to everyone via email. It's been really helpful for about three or four years now.

The most valuable feature for me is the integration with platforms. They're all moving towards providing transcripts, but I want a summary of the key points discussed and the action items, so everyone can quickly understand and follow up on them.

The tool integrates with Microsoft Outlook, but the integration with Teams is better than with Zoom. It's functional but could be tighter. 

While Zoom calls are great for talking and chatting, they often lack follow-up on action items and collaboration. Most of the time, it's just talking and listening without much progress. There's a missing piece in these tools. About 90 percent of those calls could be replaced by other tools that focus more on the deliverables that make a real impact rather than just being another wasted meeting. It doesn't improve collaboration. 

Screen sharing and chat functionality are helpful for productivity, but they could be improved. Finding the screen-sharing button can be tricky, and the process isn't always easy. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I am not impressed with the tool's support. It was a bit chaotic how things were organized. It felt like there was a lack of coordination, even regarding my account or tasks. Eventually, things got done, but it took a while. The organization seemed disjointed, with people unsure of their roles and relying on others to solve problems.

Neutral

Teams is great because it works well with Microsoft. Webex feels old and outdated compared to newer tools like Slack. It's like it's stuck in the past and doesn't have much of a future. Teams is robust and rock solid because of Microsoft. It's extremely well integrated with everything, and you feel secure using it.

Webex's user interface is not up to par, and it lacks the modern features you find in tools like Slack. While they may add a few functions here and there, Webex doesn't seem to have much of a future compared to Teams or other more advanced tools.

If I were to rank them, Webex would be at the bottom. I'm not impressed with Google Meet either. Then it's Zoom, followed by Huddle and Teams. Teams is at the top because it's robust and integrates well with many things. Huddle is catching up fast and is close behind Teams, in my opinion.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten. 

I use the tool daily as a project manager. I conduct scrum calls for my team, which are spread across multiple locations and geographies. I host daily conferences, planning meetings, and other necessary work-related discussions via Zoom. Additionally, we hold review meetings with the product managers. These sessions involve video conferences with the product managers as well.

Zoom has facilitated our remote and hybrid meetings, particularly in the context of our agile processes such as scrum. In the past, estimating story points required physical presence in a room, where we would use visual cues or hand gestures. We can create polls with Zoom and share them with team members for direct input. The recording feature is also good. Additionally, features like whiteboarding allow for specific collaboration sessions tailored to different team members' needs. Auto-scheduling meetings and integration with Microsoft Outlook make organizing and attending meetings effortless. Overall, the product is good and convenient. 

The screen sharing and whiteboarding features are particularly valuable. We utilize whiteboarding when someone needs to explain something remotely. It allows for the quick creation of visual aids and animated views. Additionally, the seamless recording feature is highly beneficial.

The tool's security features are good. There is no overlapping of any other calls with this call. Many security features are enabled, like for the call you are hosting. If it coincides with some other meeting, Zoom allows us to prevent other persons from joining this meeting and then deal with it. So there are specific options for that, which is quite helpful. Sometimes, we run over time, and we may not have the time to onboard new participants. The tool automatically pushes them into a separate meeting group. They understand that we are busy on a separate call and are not disturbed by the current meeting.

I don't have any particular issues, but I think the user interface could be improved. Previously, I used Microsoft Teams, where the chat, video, and audio options were all easily accessible in one place, making the user experience smoother. In Zoom, it's a bit more manual. For example, we must use external chat options like Slack and manually send the Zoom URL link to initiate a chat. In MicrosoftTeams, you can directly call and chat with someone from the contact list simultaneously.

I have been working with the product for two and a half years. 

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate Zoom as a nine point five out of ten regarding scalability. It's highly scalable and seamless, with minimal hiccups compared to other platforms like Teams, where there might be some integration lag. Currently, more than 10,000 users are using Zoom in our company. As of now, we don't have plans to increase usage further,

I haven't had the opportunity to contact Zoom's tech support because everything has been running smoothly. Our organization has a separate team that handles Zoom requests, and they interact with it's proprietary support team on our behalf. So far, I haven't encountered any issues requiring me to contact them.

Apart from Zoom and Microsoft Teams, Google Meet is another option we considered in our company. However, we ultimately chose Zoom because it was already adopted by our organization, and it integrates well with Outlook and Slack, which we heavily rely on for communication.

I rate the solution's deployment a ten out of ten. Microsoft Teams is more difficult to install than Zoom. Zoom's mobile setup is also easy. Deployment takes five to ten minutes to complete. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. I think we get discounts as an organization. 

Due to its whiteboard features, I recommend Zoom for remote working. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The video quality has improved a lot since we first started using Zoom. There were some issues in the beginning, but many of them have been sorted out now. The company's history is evolving; many improvements were made when Zoom first became the go-to for helping people do remote meetings. The audio quality has also improved. We had big issues at the beginning where the audio would either stutter or you couldn't hear someone.

Zoom helps you to share your screen and allows someone to take remote control during Zoom meetings. Compared with other platforms like Teams and Webex, it's on par.

One of the key features is the transcription function. Zoom can automatically transcribe the conversation and save it once it's complete. Also, the conversation recording can be done automatically, stored, and referenced later. So if someone took a call, spoke to someone, and said, 'I told them this and this,' I, as an admin, can go in and listen to that recorded conversation, validate that point, and have a little bit of the transcript to review.

The solution could be cheaper.

I have been using Zoom for a couple of years.

We've had a couple of issues. Sometimes, the phones drop out or upgrade the handset during a period of time, and then that handset is unavailable until the update is complete. There could be configuration issues. 

25 users use Zoom daily, particularly technicians who perform on-site tasks. Their Howell phone serves as their primary communication tool. For internal calls received via the Zoom app, they promptly respond. Similarly, if a salesperson is on-site and an incoming call rings the office number while no one is present, they will likely answer and represent the company. Zoom is extensively used and is a vital tool within the business, upon which they heavily rely.

Microsoft Teams is an alternative. People would have an Office 365 subscription and pay for Teams anyway. Many customers use Microsoft Teams because they're already paying for the license to use Outlook or Office.

The initial setup is straightforward but requires time, depending on your setup. We use Zoom for our phone calls. We will go through the steps to record the answering of the call and the options and then address any doubts. If you're going to set it up, you need to invest at least half a day to a day to configure all that stuff and have it work. Once you do it, it's done. You don't have to do it again. It is pretty easy to navigate and configure. You don't need to reference many manuals or instructions to achieve that.

They use a licensing model based on a per-user basis for enterprise rather than per version or end device. For example, one user logging in from a handset can also log in from a phone, and it's still technically under the same license. You can be at an office, use a desk phone, and then leave the office while still running the Zoom app on the phone using the same license.

Zoom has a high price point. Newer alternatives are coming with low prices.

If you want to start up quickly and get everything configured, Zoom is a good option. If you're a new startup or business and need a business line with an operator and all the backing of a company that answers phones and can send you to different extensions, Zoom is a good option to pick up and deploy quickly.

People within the office can participate in normal phone calls and answer the office number even though they work remotely from home. Zoom facilitates that quite well. They can run it directly on their phone; they don't need the handset at the desk connected to the back end.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven and a half out of ten.

We use the solution for our daily meetings.

Some of our people work from home, and some work from the office. The tool supports our hybrid work environment. It works well. We meet using Zoom. It is useful for collaboration within the team. The performance is perfect. The video quality is good compared to other products. The sound quality is also good. We do not face any problems. The screen-sharing capabilities are very good.

We want to use the tool for webinars, but the license is very expensive. The price must be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The stability is perfect. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. The placement of some of the options on the screen can be improved.

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten. We have approximately 100 users, including managers, engineers, and developers. We use it regularly.

The setup is straightforward. The solution can be installed in a minute. We just have one file for installation. We can install it easily.

The solution helps us conduct remote meetings quickly.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I will recommend the product to others. The tool is very useful for daily meetings. It is a very good product. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use Zoom for video conferencing, video calls, internal, and external meetings. It is a mix of internal team meetings and external client calls.

Zoom is easy to set up meetings, and the features work well. The audio and video quality is pretty good, depending on the internet connection. The screen-sharing feature works effectively, and I like how if someone else from our organization joins, we don't need to admit them via the waiting room; they just join automatically. It makes it easier to work with people remotely or in a hybrid setup.

Sometimes when I try to share my screen in a conference room, I have to click the share button more than once. This happens around fifty percent of the time.

I have been using Zoom for five to seven years.

I don't really use customer support.

Positive

At some point, we used WebEx. We switched from WebEx to Zoom for better technology and a better job with video quality streaming.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Zoom saves time because we can do more virtual meetings.

I would advise others to just go for it. I like Zoom, but I believe everything could be improved. Anything could be improved, meaning no solution is perfect. I would rate Zoom an eight.

I use Zoom for all of my sales calls, whether they are intro calls or presenting and doing a demo. I also use it for screen sharing.

The best features of Zoom include its ease of use due to an intuitive interface, which makes it suitable for both personal and professional use. Features such as screen sharing and breakout rooms enhance meeting experiences, especially for large groups. The waiting room feature is beneficial for external participants. Additionally, Zoom often delivers reliable video and audio quality, even with many participants, and integrates seamlessly with Google Calendar. This allows me to add or update Zoom conference details easily, which improves scheduling efficiency.

There is potential for Zoom to integrate functionalities like Gong, offering sales insights and follow-up suggestions. This could include generating follow-up emails and providing sales insights to make Zoom a more comprehensive tool.

I have been using Zoom for many, many years.

Zoom is stable.

In the past and at my current company, I have used Microsoft Teams and Google Meet. I prefer Zoom for its ease of use, screen sharing, and performance, which I find better than the other two.

In terms of ROI specific to my role, Zoom definitely saves time and makes my work more efficient.

I did not choose Zoom for my organization, but it was in use before I joined. In the past, I have tried Google Meet as well as Microsoft Teams.

The advice I would give others using Zoom is to be aware of all its features and functionality related to its intuitive interface, like screen sharing and the ability to do breakout rooms. Before a call, always test it out, especially if you're screen sharing or have a large audience. Additionally, I rate the overall solution an eight.

I primarily use Zoom for video networking calls. I frequently join Zoom calls, Google calls, and other platforms when needed. As a professional, I am often on different Zoom and Google calls.

Zoom is an excellent tool for networking where a number of people can join, each speaking to one another, and appearing on screen. It allows for video and audio switching, and meetings can be segmented into breakout rooms for smaller group interactions. These features significantly enhance its utility as a conferencing tool.

There is room for improvement in Zoom, though I cannot pinpoint specifics. Issues such as stability, particularly when many people are involved, may arise due to bandwidth rather than Zoom itself. However, Zoom could benefit from enhancements to manage large participant volumes.

When there is a large number of people in a call, the stability can become an issue, which might be attributed to either network or software. However, it's often tied to network bandwidth rather than Zoom's software.

Up to three hundred participants can join without significant issues. Larger numbers may require more specific examination regarding stability.

I also use Google Meet, which is available for free.

Zoom installation is straightforward, and even those unfamiliar with the software should not find it challenging to install.

I use the free version of Zoom and have not encountered significant issues in its use. I also use the free version of Google Meet.

I use both Zoom and Google Meet.

Zoom performs well and does what users expect. It can be rated an eight out of ten. It fulfills its purpose efficiently without significant issues.