Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GoToMeeting vs Skype for Business comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

GoToMeeting
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Skype for Business
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Virtual Meetings category, the mindshare of GoToMeeting is 3.1%, down from 3.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skype for Business is 5.2%, down from 11.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Virtual Meetings Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Skype for Business5.2%
GoToMeeting3.1%
Other91.7%
Virtual Meetings
 

Featured Reviews

Gavin Tomlins - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Information Officer at a pharma/biotech company with 11-50 employees
Clunky with poor interface, lacks sufficient functionalities; it did reduce need for in-person meetings
We're phasing out the use of GoToMeeting because of some of its deficiencies. It lacks ease of connectivity, calendar integrations, and third-party app integrations. The user interface is quite poor and needs to be reworked and the product is quite clunky in comparison to its competitors. It currently lacks the ability for sharing collaborative materials during a meeting. We also found that the ability to switch between audio and video configurations isn't as intuitive as in other applications. I generally do 20-30 hours of video conferencing a day, so it makes a difference to have these features. It doesn't integrate as easily into phone systems as well as other organizations and it doesn't integrate as easy into instant messaging and collaboration tools or into software solutions. In general, some of the functionalities need to be improved.
reviewer1854369 - PeerSpot reviewer
Executive at a government with 201-500 employees
Relying on dependable communication features for efficient collaboration
I work with Microsoft Exchange. We use Microsoft Azure, though I am not involved with the back-end operations. I work with Microsoft Exchange and ServiceNow for the service desk. I do not work with Cloud Observability or Automation Engine. We use Microsoft Copilot with Teams. We do not use Microsoft Security Copilot as it is not cloud-based. We have moved from Skype for Business to Teams recently, though some of us still use Skype for Business because it is convenient. Skype for Business is particularly useful for remoting onto people's devices. I prefer Skype for Business over Teams for screen sharing. Sometimes there are compatibility issues when running Microsoft Teams and Skype for Business together. Phone calls in Teams might ring and then go silent, or the microphone might not detect calls from either application. I rate Skype for Business a 9 out of 10 because it works effectively with minimal issues.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I like GoToMeeting because it is lighter than other solutions, such as Webex."
"There is no lagging and the meeting interaction is seamless."
"Screenshare is the most valuable feature as well as the number of meeting participants possible in a meeting. It also has good quality."
"Even for somebody who does not have a lot of experience, they can easily use it."
"The most valuable feature is the dial-in capability."
"It was just chosen because somebody at the company said, "We need a meeting thing. Hey, go find a meeting thing." It wasn't me, but somebody else in the organization was like, "Alright, let's use GoToMeeting. It's free.""
"We can record meetings and share the screen with participants."
"GoToMeeting's low latency is crucial because everybody is using VPN to connect to their PCs at work. The sound and video quality are solid, and the whiteboarding features were especially useful. The administrative side of it was fairly simple and intuitive to use."
"The GUI is very user-friendly."
"What is most valuable about Skype for Business is that almost everyone knows about it and almost everyone has it. You will be able to reach a large number of people."
"The solution is stable and scalable."
"The conversation history feature in Skype for Business is particularly useful because it links with Outlook, and it is beneficial to access conversations with colleagues from six months ago through Skype for Business."
"We like the tools our administrator can use to identify which calls had quality issues and why. This makes troubleshooting our user experience somewhat easier."
"We really like the screen sharing tool. The user experience is smooth, and user-friendly."
"There are free versions of the solution available."
"The tool's most valuable features are its audio and chat functions. They help us save time and have good telephone integration."
 

Cons

"In addition to the features it already has, I think GoToMeeting should also have additional features that are not present at the moment."
"Manageability needs to be improved."
"The solution must include archive options to save the recorded meetings for future reference. The recording functionality can benefit our team by improving how meetings are recorded and shared. Previously, only admins could record meetings, sometimes leading to issues if recordings were missed or not shared properly. The recent update now allows hosting GoToMeeting sessions with the ability to delegate recording rights to other team members."
"Using GoToMeeting in a meeting-sized conference room is kind of a letdown. The camera is supposed to track the speaker and focus on that person so that they can be on the screen. That feature rarely worked. We tested it thoroughly, so maybe it was an issue with the size of the conference room. It may not be suitable for large conference rooms."
"In the next release, I would for it to incorporate files more efficiently from one computer to another when we covert things and send them out. I'm not sure if it's capable of that."
"The newer user interface takes a bit longer to get used to."
"I didn't like the fact that they tried to make their new version look like Zoom."
"It is not so stable."
"We would like to better customize our instructions within the Outlook plugin/invite, but we are unable to do so."
"We have found that there is a lag because it cannot integrate with the internal landline."
"I feel bored with the look and feel of the tool, so it should be changed."
"The technical support from Microsoft needs to be improved."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"I don't recall coming across any big missing features."
"Skype for Business is good for the PCs with higher bandwidth, but an improvement is required for low bandwidth usage."
"We overcame the audio quality issues by asking users to use the 'Call Me' feature with their desk phone."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a little expensive although now, with the competition from Zoom and other products, they have lowered their prices and it is better."
"Negotiate for discounts."
"GoToMeeting is a little bit expensive compared to other products."
"It may be considered costly for certain markets, such as in India."
"When it comes to the pricing of the solution, I rate it as a five out of ten. It falls somewhere in the middle between being cheap and expensive."
"We purchased an open license."
"The licensing is billed on a yearly basis."
"We are using the subscription-based version of Skype for Business. There is a free version of the solution."
"I use the product's open-source version."
"A license is required to use the solution."
"We have been able to save money by moving our conferencing solution to Skype for Business Conferencing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Virtual Meetings solutions are best for your needs.
882,606 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Marketing Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Performing Arts
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with GoToMeeting?
The solution must include archive options to save the recorded meetings for future reference. The recording functionality can benefit our team by improving how meetings are recorded and shared. Pre...
What is your primary use case for GoToMeeting?
I use the solution when someone is comfortable using it, and I recommend using it.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Skype for Business?
Skype for Business is affordable and has decent pricing. The video quality is a bit lower than Teams or Zoom, but it remains a good solution overall.
What needs improvement with Skype for Business?
I cannot think of many ways in which Skype for Business could improve in general. It works fairly efficiently for our purposes with Skype for Business. There is one issue regarding the audio settin...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Skype for Business Plan 1, Skype for Business Plan 2, Lync Server
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AAPT, ACD Groupe, Addison Fire, Avigilon Corporation, Basic Industries Ltd., Bitdefender, Branson School Online, Budd Van Lines, Business Fitness, Business Wire
EmpireCLS Worldwide Chauffeured Services,LA Fitness, MedcoEnergi International, Tampa General Hospital, and HopewellHoldings Limited.
Find out what your peers are saying about GoToMeeting vs. Skype for Business and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
882,606 professionals have used our research since 2012.