Zoom Reviews

We use Zoom for video call sessions.

Zoom drastically reduced the amount of travel because most customer meetings can be done via Zoom meetings. It makes training and webinars quite interactive with the help of breakout rooms, which is quite nice.

The most valuable features of Zoom are the audio and video quality and the ease of use when setting up meetings. Interacting during the meeting by highlighting things, using whiteboards, and chatting makes it an interactive and good experience. The webinar functionality and the interaction options during meetings are useful features of Zoom.

I often use a highlighting feature in Slack Huddles, which makes it easier to point someone in someone else's screen share. Zoom should include a highlighting feature like in Slack Huddles. The solution is not very useful for chat and lacks highlighting functionality.

I have been using Zoom for four years.

Zoom is a highly stable solution.

Zoom is a scalable solution. We have a couple of hundred Zoom users locally, and we have worldwide around 1,000 users.

We use the cloud version of Zoom. Users should really focus on the video conferences and webinar functionality. Zoom is not designed for chats, channels, or discussions.

Overall, I rate Zoom a nine out of ten.

I use Zoom for scheduling work meeting purposes.

The product's most valuable features are chat and video streaming.

There must be an option to ask permission from the host to record the Zoom meeting. 

We have been using Zoom for more than a year. We are using the latest version.

I rate Zoom's stability a nine out of ten.

The product is highly scalable. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten. Our organization has more than ten users, and we use Zoom at least once a week. I might plan to increase the usage depending on the business requirements.

I have used Skype before. Later, I switched to Zoom, which is more convenient, easy to use, and set up. It has multiple options for chat. It also has more features overall compared to Skype.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the process a nine out of ten. It takes ten minutes to complete. I implement the updates manually.

I rate the product's pricing a seven out of ten. It is not affordable for small businesses.

I have evaluated Microsoft Teams. In comparison, Zoom is convenient to use.

I rate Zoom an eight out of ten.

Zoom is interoperable and user-friendly.

It would be great if Zoom could continue to enhance all of its features to keep up with other solutions on the market. The free version of Zoom could be improved and offer more functionality. We would also like to have whiteboard and drawing functionality. 

We have used this solution for three years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution but I am not sure how many users it is possible to have on one call. 

The technical support for this solution is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We are service providers. If a client has some of those licenses, they will arrange for a Zoom meeting. We share whatever storage the clients have, but we do not purchase storage.

Zoom is used for video communication.

The performance is good. 

We are satisfied with this solution, it's good.

Security is required, and I assume that it is already in place. Aside from that, we are not utilizing Zoom's high-end capabilities.

In the next release, I would like to see better security.

I have been working with Zoom for three years.

It is dependent on what the client does on their end in terms of deployment.

We haven't had any problems with Zoom in our limited use.

We have not had any issues with the scalability of Zoom.

I have not contacted technical support.

Jaeger, Teams, and Grafana are the tools used in the company for remote monitoring.

We use a variety of operating systems, including Linux, Unix, and Windows.

We also use the network storage for office purposes and I personally use Google Drive, iPhone, and iCloud. 

I don't work with the Enterprise edition; instead, I use the open edition.

It doesn't require installation, we use a link, but sometimes we have to download from the browser. This process is straightforward.

I was able to complete this process myself.

I would recommend Zoom to anyone who is thinking about using it.

I would rate Zoom an eight out of ten.

It works. It's easy to use and it's easy to set up.

I like that it is easy to record. 

To me, it's like using your iPhone. It's not a big deal. It's not a big deal to set up a meeting. 

Screen sharing is important. Being able to pull up spreadsheets, system presentations, PowerPoints, whatever, is very helpful. The tool's pretty effective that way.

People like it to be light. They like it to be not so technical that it's hard to learn or hard to use. One of the reasons Zoom grew so fast is that kids could learn it, old people could learn it, workers could learn it. It takes a little more learning curve to have the license and host meetings. Set up meetings, to host, there's a little bit more there, however, even that's pretty simple.

One thing I do wish was that there was more visibility. Sometimes I have to click into a reply-all to find out who is in the meeting and whether they've accepted or not. It's not convenient to check on that while you're in a meeting.

Teams is better about that. Teams is better about posting up right in front of you so you can see who was invited, who clicked in or not, who's on the call. 

Also when people are talking, you see either their image, if they've got an avatar, or at least their initials, and a little round fake avatar that's blinking when they're trying to talk, or they're raising their hand. That is the only thing I'd say that's really a frustration for me with Zoom, is I'm not always sure who got invited.

I've used the solution for a while. I use it every day.

I'm working virtually and my clients are all over the country. I don't visit them more than maybe once every six weeks each. I'm on the phone in Zoom or Teams probably 15 to 20 hours a week.

The stability is quite good. I haven't dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is good. Expanding it is not a problem. 

As consultants, there's only usually a few of us that are engaged with a client. We don't send an army in. We're very senior consultants, and our rates are really high. We're like hiring an attorney or something. We're not a bunch of bodies coming in to do all the leg work. We're advising them on how to do a lot of things properly in terms of ERP selection and implementation.

That said, we're engaging with a lot of people though. For example, in this one client I have, they're in Baltimore, I'm often on a call with 20 people. I may be the only one on my side and there's all of them. I have to know who they are and get familiar with their voices. A lot of the time, more people aren't necessarily doing the video thing where they're displaying themselves. It's just is less common that people do that. That's because more people are working virtually and maybe they're still in their t-shirt or you haven't taken a shower that day. If people aren't displaying themselves, you use the tool more like a phone in a sense, as you have to know, "Okay. That was Jackie speaking. That was Lisa speaking. That was Alice speaking."

We get familiar with each other, we get to know each other. However, we typically deal with maybe 10 or 12 people on a call. They may be in different locations. With one client I have, they're in 23 states. Various key people are in different places. Other kinds of meetings I have oftentimes been a three or four-way, where you've got a client and you've got a vendor who's maybe doing something for them. We can have essentially three or four companies represented in a call, and we're having maybe calls two or three times a week.

I've also used Microsoft Teams.

The larger the client, the more likely it is that they're going to use Teams instead of Zoom. Oftentimes, they're setting up the meetings and they prefer to set them up. I have this one large client where we're recording every one of our sessions, as they're reusable then for walking back through and revisiting deep discussions we've had and requirements and so on.

I don't happen to like Teams, it's clunky. Teams is clunky and it's also just harder to use. Particularly if you're using it also is a repository for documents, folders, recording, and so on. It's just not as usable.

The initial setup is very simple. 

I have a subscription to Zoom.

I am a customer and an end-user.

What my partner and I typically would do if we are in control of that is we use Zoom. We'll use Box for our repository of the artifacts, requirements, recordings, and so on. Box is also very, very easy to use. However, we find Teams clunky on both sides now. However, even though we prefer Zoom if a client prefers a different conference system, and they've got dozens of people inside that are married to that, well, we'll go with what they use.

We are on the latest version of Zoom. Zoom actually forces that. If you get a Zoom subscription, it pops up a patch or an update or whatever, and it's no big deal to click that and update.

What Zoom is, is it's a very convenient, easy to use, quick to set up, simple to learn tool. It works pretty effectively. 

However, people aren't using it so visually anymore as they used to. A lot of times it's really just a meetup where you're all on the same call, and people won't even post their videos too much anymore. Sometimes, if we're at a first-time meeting, we'll have our visual presence there, however, then we'll hide it away behind an avatar. People just aren't in need of that facial thing too much.

The main thing for me was just knowing who's scheduled for a call. Sometimes I don't know who's going to be on the call until I get on the call. There's a list there, however, you don't know who's accepted. We need a clear list. That would be an improvement.

Keeping it light is important. Everything is getting more and more like that. Even the system designs, major ERP systems, most of them when you log in, you feel like you're in a box. It feels boxy. That's the way Teams feels. It's got a structured menu architecture and so on, and frames around everything. The way things are going - and this is how Zoom is - it feels like you're in an open space. It doesn't feel like a box of things. It's an open flow. Keeping it that way is going to be important.

If you add more features, you have to keep it easy to find, easy to hide. Don't throw them on your whole menu. Don't throw everything at me. Just what I'm using is all I need. I'll give you another example of that. There's a system called CRM, Customer Relationship Management, such as Salesforce. Salesforce made a major strategic mistake. They built the thing that is a very complex functional solution. It's expensive due to the fact that it's so overbuilt. I don't know where Salesforce is at, however, I've got a lot of clients that I've run into that say, "Yeah, we put in Salesforce a few years ago and we're going to replace that now as too costly and we don't use it all."

They didn't do a very effective job of layering functionality so that you only see what you use, and make it simple, make it easy. Also, they didn't scale the pricing to what they're going to use. Salesforce is probably still pretty ubiquitous, however, it's probably going to get beat out by a bunch of these smaller, lighter, more open solutions. The challenge for Zoom would be to stay Zoom, and don't fix what isn't broken. It is a great tool. I really have very little, almost nothing but praise for Zoom. The only thing I'd say is that competitively, they're going to have to think about, well, what else does it have to be able to do?

In my opinion, it's going to be making the visual collaboration, not from people to people, and instead, the people to content, whether it's websites, systems, logins, spreadsheets, whatever, making that so easy to do that it's almost natural. We can more quickly say, "Oh, okay, let me pull that up."

Layer number one is, it ought to be as natural as sliding your fingers across the screen in some magical way to be able to show what you want to show. The next layer is going to have to have more social collaboration from inside and outside of the system.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten so far. In comparison, I might rate Microsoft Teams at a six or so. 

We use this solution as part of our corporate communications system. I'm principal CTO and we are customers of Zoom. 

It was easy to deploy Zoom and it's a product that was easily accepted throughout the company, even by our management team. Zoom is just very simple for the user and it works regardless of where you are and the device you're using. The ease of integration of the conference rooms for our leadership was probably the most valuable aspect. With WebEx or Teams where you need converters in the middle and things didn't always work, the leadership team was always complaining about those solutions. 

One issue I have is that there is no indicator on chats to let you know whether a message has been read so you're never sure if it's been seen. They could implement something like Whatsapp with the two check marks. I also think that the integration with Microsoft is not as good as it was with Jabber. It's not the end of the world but it could be better. In a similar vein, I think that when it comes to document sharing the integration could be improved.

I think that if your main focus is on communication between team members, especially with people working from home, this is a simple solution. We need to recognize that not everyone is an IT person and we're working with people at all levels in the company, whether they're in the field, the warehouses, or in fabrication. For all of them this is, quite honestly, more user-friendly than WebEx or Teams will ever be.

Based on our use cases, I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

Right now for meetings, we are using Zoom. We use it for video communications. Since the pandemic started we started using Zoom. Our first experience we had a problem with security. We got people bombing the meetings. 

The screen sharing feature is valuable. It is easy to set up a meeting if you are on a call with a non Teams user if you need to do screen sharing. COVID-19 is showing us a new way to communicate, that everything doesn't have to be face to face meetings. And so the more you can really understand the capability of the software, the better you are.

It is difficult to collaborate. You have to book a meeting first before being able to do anything. We have had experiences where the meeting has frozen. We had to shut it down and get back on again to keep going. Zoom has privacy issues and also stability issues. I would like to see integrations into other applications. It would be nice to have multiple people be able to collaborate on the same screen.

We have been using Zoom for three or four months. Since the Pandemic started.

I would much rather be using Teams and be able to dial up anybody. With Teams, you can collaborate and share files with anybody. Teams are more dynamic. We have also used Skype.

I would rate Zoom at a five on a scale of 10. I don't think it has all the integration. This is also because of security issues.

I use it for school mostly. I use it for remote meetings with one or more people.

The most valuable features are the video conferencing and the whole invite to set up a meeting is really easy to figure out and use. The chat functions are pretty simple as well.

Zoom needs to address the privacy issues I've heard about. There have been multiple breaches that have made the news. That would be something to address.

I have used Zoom for a year and a half.

Connectivity is surprisingly good. I've had upwards of 90 people on a call and with no issues noticed, and seems pretty easy to manage people, seeing as the host of the call can usually mute everyone.

I would rate Zoom at a nine on a scale of ten.