Avoma receives generally positive user feedback, with reviewers appreciating its ability to eliminate the need for manual note-taking during client calls and meetings. Users report that the platform allows them to focus on productive conversations rather than juggling documentation tasks. The service is described as a practical solution for managing meeting notes and tasks, with users finding it superior to attempting to take notes by hand during important business interactions.

Read.ai faces significant user concerns regarding security and user experience issues. Users report problems with the platform continuing to join calls without approval even after account deletion, and the service forces users to create accounts and connect calendars to access meeting notes. These security concerns and intrusive practices appear to be contributing factors to user dissatisfaction with the platform.

For more detailed information about these platforms, readers can explore: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Avoma positions itself as a comprehensive AI meeting assistant that excels in transcription accuracy and CRM integration. Its 95% transcription accuracy and strong integration with sales tools like HubSpot and Salesforce make it particularly valuable for sales and customer success teams. However, its comprehensive feature set can feel overwhelming for users with simple needs, and the platform occasionally experiences technical hiccups like delayed bot joins or speaker identification errors.

The tool works well for teams that need detailed meeting documentation and automated CRM logging, though the integrations often require third-party connectors like Zapier rather than native connections. Pricing scales quickly for advanced features, potentially limiting adoption for smaller teams. While Avoma offers solid workflow automation for basic tasks, it falls short of providing the deeper integration capabilities that would truly streamline complex business processes.

Read.ai differentiates itself by offering meeting analytics and engagement insights beyond basic transcription services. Its sentiment analysis, speaker balance metrics, and real-time translation features appeal to teams focused on meeting effectiveness and global collaboration. The platform's AI search functionality across meeting transcripts creates a knowledge base, though the interface complexity can create a steeper learning curve for new users.

Read.ai suits teams that want to analyze and improve their meeting culture, particularly those already invested in the Zoom ecosystem where it operates as an essential app. While it offers more integrations than Avoma, many connections still require manual setup and don't provide the seamless workflow automation that busy teams need to truly leverage their meeting data. The limited free tier and premium pricing for full functionality may deter smaller organizations from accessing its more powerful features.

Why users switch away from Avoma or Read.ai

Users switch away from Avoma due to platform complexity that exceeds their needs. The software is described as "not a basic transcriber" and represents a "hefty platform" that serves as overkill for individual users or those with simple transcription requirements. This comprehensive approach can overwhelm users who need straightforward meeting recording and note-taking functionality.

Technical reliability issues drive user migration from Avoma. Users report that the meeting bot sometimes joins meetings late, causing missed content at the beginning of sessions. Additionally, the platform experiences occasional speaker identification errors, which can lead to confusion about who said what during meetings. These technical hiccups disrupt the meeting flow and reduce confidence in the platform's dependability.

Premium pricing structure creates barriers for continued usage, particularly among smaller teams and budget-conscious organizations. While Avoma offers a free plan limited to approximately 10 meetings per month, the paid tiers range from $19 per user monthly for the Starter plan up to $129 per user monthly for Enterprise features. The higher-tier pricing is positioned on the premium side of the market, making it financially challenging for small teams to justify the cost relative to their meeting volume and feature requirements.

Users switch away from Read.ai due to its restrictive free tier, which limits users to only 5 meetings per month with full notes. This constraint is particularly problematic compared to competitors that offer more generous free allowances, forcing users to upgrade to paid plans sooner than they might prefer.

The platform's complex and cluttered user interface creates a steep learning curve that some users find overwhelming. With numerous features including notes, analytics, and search capabilities all integrated into one system, users report the interface as "confusing" and note that it doesn't deliver the expected time-saving benefits due to its complexity.

Privacy concerns arise from Read.ai's meeting participation practices, with users on Reddit warning that the tool joining others' meetings without explicit consent can create boundary issues. Additionally, the technical inconsistencies with live coach metrics when participants join late or experience microphone problems, combined with higher-tier pricing that can deter small teams, contribute to user attrition.

FAQs

Would these tools work for in-person meetings?

Yes, both Avoma and Read.ai work for in-person meetings. Avoma has a mobile app that can record offline/in-person meetings for later transcription. Read.ai also supports in-person meetings through its iOS app, which can capture in-person/offline meetings with one tap.

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

Read.ai does not require meeting bots - it records virtual meetings via cloud or extension. The information provided doesn't explicitly state whether Avoma requires a meeting bot, though there are mentions of "the bot sometimes joins a meeting late" in user feedback, suggesting it may use bots for some functionality.

What do users say about the quality of transcriptions?

Users rate Avoma's transcriptions highly, with approximately 95% accuracy even with jargon or accents. For Read.ai, users consider the summaries "smart" and appreciate that they capture questions asked and topics discussed, though specific transcription accuracy percentages aren't mentioned.

Do these tools help users follow up with action items from meetings?

Yes, both tools help with action items. Avoma generates organized notes broken into topics including next steps, and automates follow-up emails and CRM data entry. Read.ai generates reports with key points and action items after meetings, and can auto-sync notes to CRM systems.

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

Yes, both tools offer integrations with these platforms. Avoma connects with HubSpot and Salesforce for CRM sync, and also integrates with Notion via Zapier. Read.ai has robust integrations including HubSpot, Salesforce, Confluence, Jira, Notion, 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