Avoma receives generally positive feedback from users who appreciate its effectiveness for client calls and meeting management. Users report that it eliminates the need to juggle note-taking during conversations, allowing for more focused and productive meetings. The platform is described as a practical solution that is easy to use and helps advance projects while saving time through improved collaboration features.

Otter.ai generates mixed reviews from users, with some praising its comprehensive summaries as outstanding, quick, and accurate, while others express significant concerns about its performance. Users report that the service struggles particularly with multi-speaker transcripts, with some describing it as "absolutely horrible" at capturing conversations with multiple participants. Despite being characterized as an easy-to-use recording and transcription service, reviewers note that transcripts often require additional editing and that the platform has hard limits on its capabilities.

For more detailed information, you can explore these reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Avoma positions itself as a comprehensive AI meeting assistant with strong transcription accuracy and structured note organization. Its ability to categorize meeting content into topics like pain points and next steps makes it particularly valuable for sales and customer success teams. However, the platform can feel overly complex for users with simple transcription needs, and its premium pricing tiers may be prohibitive for smaller teams.

The tool excels at CRM integration and workflow automation, though users report occasional technical issues like late bot arrivals and dense transcripts that are difficult to skim. Its comprehensive feature set comes with a learning curve that may not justify the investment for individual users or basic meeting notes. While integrations exist, they often require third-party services like Zapier, limiting seamless workflow execution.

Otter.ai offers straightforward transcription with real-time capabilities and an accessible user interface that appeals to a broad audience. Its generous free tier and lower pricing make it attractive for students, freelancers, and small teams who need basic meeting documentation. The platform handles various use cases from business meetings to interviews, though its transcripts can become verbose and lack the structured organization that busy professionals need.

The tool's main weaknesses include inconsistent accuracy with complex audio and unstructured output that requires manual review to extract key insights. Configuration issues can lead to unwanted meeting joins and calendar spam, creating administrative overhead rather than reducing it. Like Avoma, Otter.ai's integrations, while present, don't provide the deep automation needed to transform meeting insights into actionable workflow outcomes.

Why users switch away from Avoma or Otter.ai

Users switch away from Avoma due to platform complexity that exceeds their needs. The software functions as a comprehensive meeting assistant with extensive features, but users report it can be overkill for individual users or simple transcription requirements. The platform's hefty nature makes it unsuitable for those seeking basic transcription functionality without additional layers of meeting management tools.

Technical issues create friction in the user experience. Users report bugs including the bot joining meetings late and occasional failures in speaker identification during transcriptions. While Avoma achieves approximately 95% transcription accuracy, these technical delays and identification misses disrupt meeting flow and reduce reliability for users who require consistent performance.

Cost considerations drive users toward alternatives, particularly for smaller teams and organizations. Avoma's paid plans range from $19 to $129 per user per month, positioning it on the premium side of meeting software pricing. The free plan limits users to approximately 10 meetings per month, which constrains teams that need more extensive usage without budget allocation for higher-tier subscriptions.

Users switch away from Otter.ai due to transcript structure and organization issues. The transcripts are overly verbose and lack structure, making it difficult to quickly locate key takeaways from meetings. This creates inefficiency when users need to reference specific information or action items from their recorded sessions.

Accuracy problems with complex audio scenarios drive users to seek alternatives. Otter.ai experiences transcription mistakes and speaker identification errors, particularly when dealing with challenging audio conditions. These accuracy issues can compromise the reliability of meeting records and important business communications.

Meeting management complications cause user frustration and platform abandonment. The Otter.ai assistant can spam calendar invites or join unwanted meetings when not properly configured. Additionally, the free version's 40-minute cap on Zoom meetings creates limitations that interrupt longer sessions, forcing users to either upgrade or find alternative solutions.

FAQs

Would Avoma work for in-person meetings? What about Otter.ai?

Yes, both tools work for in-person meetings. Avoma has a mobile app that can record offline/in-person meetings for later transcription. Otter.ai can also transcribe live in-person conversations via its app.

Does either of these tools require a meeting bot to join the meeting?

Based on the information provided, Avoma uses a bot that joins meetings (with some users reporting the bot occasionally joins late). For online meetings, both tools appear to use meeting assistants or bots to join and record, though they can also handle local recordings without requiring a meeting bot.

What do users say about the quality of transcriptions?

Avoma receives high praise for transcription quality, with users reporting ~95% accuracy even with jargon or accents. Otter.ai receives more mixed feedback - while users appreciate the ease of use and real-time transcription capabilities, some report that accuracy can suffer with complex audio, and there are occasional mistakes in transcription and speaker identification.

Do these tools help a user follow up with action items from the meeting? How so?

Yes, both tools help with follow-ups. Avoma generates organized notes broken into topics including "next steps" and actionable insights, and automates follow-up emails and CRM data entry. Otter.ai's "OtterPilot" feature auto-generates summaries and follow-up emails, and provides AI-generated summaries of key themes from meetings.

Do these tools integrate with software like HubSpot, Salesforce, or Linear?

Yes, both integrate with major business software. Avoma has strong integration with HubSpot and Salesforce for CRM sync, capturing meeting info directly into these platforms, plus connects with Notion via Zapier. Otter.ai integrates with HubSpot and pushes notes to various platforms including Notion via its OtterPilot feature, and also integrates with Zoom and Slack.

Another alternative: Circleback

Circleback provides best-in-class AI-powered meeting notes and automations. We support over 100 languages and automatic participant identification in both in-person and online meetings.

• Automatically-identified and assigned action items

• AI-enabled search across all meetings

• Automations with 100+ app integrations

• Industry-leading security with SOC 2 Type II, EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and HIPAA compliance

• Ability to capture both online and in-person meetings with desktop and mobile apps