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

LifeSize vs Microsoft Teams comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

LifeSize
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
39th
Average Rating
5.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Teams
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
166
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Social Software (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Virtual Meetings category, the mindshare of LifeSize is 0.2%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Teams is 2.7%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Virtual Meetings
 

Featured Reviews

it_user1320285 - PeerSpot reviewer
Good video conferencing but it needs to support third-party hardware
We are using Lifesize for video conferencing and virtual meetings The most valuable feature is video conferencing. This solution needs better platform integration with third-parties such as Microsoft and Cisco. It needs support for third-party hardware as opposed to only Lifesize-branded…
Arun Srivastav - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless presentation and collaboration enhance organizational productivity
There are three main areas for improvement: Firstly, AI capabilities should be integrated into Microsoft Teams to provide better transcript services and offer multiple language support. Secondly, it should allow participants to remain visible during presentations, enhancing interaction. Lastly, it needs broader integration capabilities with other products, like Salesforce ( /vendors/salesforce ), which is currently limited.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is video conferencing."
"I don't have to physically go to the meetings; I can do it virtually."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Teams is that it is integrated with the Microsoft ecosystem."
"Communication is really easy to handle."
"Sharing screens is valuable."
"Microsoft Teams adds value for businesses by providing functionality that includes co-authoring on work documents, publishing Power BI sites for reporting and billing, and integrating calendaring."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Teams is its video calling feature which makes it easier to work on the solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The installation is very, very easy."
 

Cons

"This solution needs better platform integration with third-parties such as Microsoft and Cisco."
"Microsoft Teams should include better integration of the multi-viewer webinar-type system."
"Sometimes, other participants cannot see the shared screen during meetings. The tool also needs to automatically switch to devices as we change them. When I try to switch audio from speaker to Bluetooth, I have to manually do that."
"In terms of functionality, I would like to see support for multi-user or multiple windows for the File structure."
"It's a bit slow, especially if you are downloading photos."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"The chat option in the Teams tab is not very helpful. We don't use it very often. There is also an expiration on the recordings. It would be useful to not have a time limit."
"The tool's AI feature works well for English. However, it should also work for other languages, such as Vietnamese."
"The integration with SharePoint can be cumbersome at times."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The solution's pricing is average."
"Microsoft Teams is expensive compared to other solutions."
"In our experience, pricing may differ from country to country, with some regions offering more favorable rates due to local payment arrangements."
"Microsoft Teams is priced less than other solutions, such as Bridge."
"Microsoft Teams comes free if you're using it in an organization."
"The solution is affordable."
"I don't think the solution is as expensive as big Webex licenses. It doesn't usually offer one-on-one licenses, so it's hard to compare. It's more expensive than the Google equivalent, but you can't replace Microsoft Teams with Google's offering."
"It is a bit more than moderately expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Virtual Meetings solutions are best for your needs.
849,335 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
3%
Computer Software Company
3%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Microsoft Teams?
The most valuable feature of Microsoft Teams for us is the ability to share files from OneDrive seamlessly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Teams?
Microsoft Teams comes with Office 365 ( /products/office-365-reviews ) licenses like E3, but there are options for those who prefer not to pay for Teams by using alternative products like Slack ( /...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Teams?
The biggest issue with Microsoft Teams is switching identities, especially when communicating with external organizations. Users often don't know they have messages from another company unless they...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

LifeSize
MS Teams
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Barrow County School System, ActiVision, BBVA, BWB, Bateman, eBay, Epson, Gevers, FannieMae, GlaxoSmithKline, Jones & Walker, KKR, RAF Museum Cosford
Honeywll, AIRFRANCE, AccuWeather, Lilly
Find out what your peers are saying about Zoom Video Communications, Cisco, Microsoft and others in Virtual Meetings. Updated: April 2025.
849,335 professionals have used our research since 2012.