I Tested Zoom vs.Teams: Here's What I’d Use in 2026

The average worker spends 18 hours a week in meetings and mostly on meeting software. I've comfortably blown past that number across both Zoom and Microsoft Teams — running external client calls, internal team meetings, interviews, webinars, and hybrid sessions. Long enough to know what good meeting software looks like when it works, and how much it costs you when it doesn't.

Pick the wrong one, and those hours quietly fill up with delays, context-switching, and unnecessary friction. Whether you're choosing for the first time or second-guessing a decision you've already made, the differences between Zoom and Microsoft Teams aren't obvious until you've lived inside both.

So I did. I tested them out for external client calls, internal team meetings, file collaboration, mobile joins, weak WiFi, and AI summaries to assess what worked and what didn't.

Here's where each one delivered, and where it fell short.

Note: Both Microsoft and Zoom roll out new updates to these software. The details here reflect the most current capabilities as of December 2025, but may change over time.

Zoom vs. Microsoft Teams: What's different and what's not

I switched between the two tools regularly, and one thing became clear fast: they treat meetings differently. Zoom treats a meeting as its own moment. Teams treats it as one part of an ongoing workspace.

Both solve the same problem, but that difference changes how work actually flows. The scenarios below are where I saw the biggest gaps, and where you might feel the most tangible difference in your own day-to-day life.

Zoom vs. Microsoft Teams: The differences

• Meeting layout and focus: Zoom keeps the meeting UI simple and centered on video, screen share, and core controls, so the call itself stays front and center. Teams places the meeting inside a chat or channel, with messages and files sitting alongside the call, so it feels like one part of an ongoing workspace.
  
  Ease of joining meetings: Zoom makes joining calls quick because the meeting exists independently of any broader account setup. Guests can enter with minimal friction. Teams work smoothly when everyone is within the same Microsoft 365 organization. External participants can join, but their experience may be limited based on the configured guest access
• Browser vs. desktop app experience: Zoom works reliably in the browser for both hosts and guests, which reduces friction for external meetings. Teams supports browser access, too, but the desktop app works better for guests outside the organization. For external calls, Zoom's browser-first approach was more consistent.
• Collaboration around documents: In Zoom, collaboration is strongest during the call through screen sharing, annotations, reactions, and whiteboards, while follow-up work typically moves into other tools your team already uses.
  In Teams, documents, comments, and follow-ups stay tied to the same chat or channel, making it easy to find shared files after the meeting ends.
• Ecosystem and integrations: Zoom fits comfortably into mixed tool stacks and connects with a wide range of third-party apps without assuming a specific productivity suite. Teams is strongest when paired with Microsoft 365, where meetings, calendars, files, tasks, and notes all connect across Outlook, OneDrive, SharePoint, Planner, and Loop.
• AI assistance and summaries (when enabled): Zoom’s AI features are focused mainly on the meeting itself, helping with summaries, highlights, and action items from individual calls. Teams’ AI, when available through Microsoft 365 licenses, can pull context from chats, emails, documents, and meetings, so insights stretch beyond a single call into the rest of the workspace.
• Recordings and where they live: Zoom stores cloud recordings and transcripts (on supported plans) in its own recording library, which works well if Zoom is your primary meeting tool. Teams stores recordings and transcripts (when enabled) in OneDrive or SharePoint, so they sit alongside other project files and can be managed with the same access controls.
• Large meetings and events: Zoom is often the go-to for webinars and large-scale events. It's familiar to join, has an easy flow, and gives minimal friction for attendees. Teams offers structured event formats like internal town halls, with built-in registration, Q&A moderation, and attendee analytics.
• External vs. internal workflows: Zoom works well when you're regularly meeting with people outside your organization; there's no shared system needed. Teams fits better when most of your collaboration happens internally, with conversations tied to documents, tasks, and ongoing projects.
• Video reliability & quality: Zoom maintains a reputation for stable audio/video performance, especially in mixed-network or external setups. Teams performs well, too, but the experience can vary slightly based on organizational configuration and bandwidth policies.
• Pricing and admin experience: Zoom’s pricing centers around meeting capacity, recording features, and webinar options, making it straightforward for teams that primarily need video calls. Teams’ pricing depends on Microsoft 365 licensing, where meetings are bundled with email, storage, and productivity tools. Admin settings, permissions, and guest access policies also influence how the meeting experience feels.

Zoom and Microsoft Teams: The similarities

Once the major differences are clear, the natural question is: are there baseline gaps I need to worry about?
In regular use, there weren't. Across core areas, both tools delivered the same outcomes.

• Video calls behave the same at a practical level. For standard meetings like weekly syncs, project reviews, and longer discussions with screen sharing, both Zoom and Teams behaved similarly. Video layouts adjusted smoothly, screen sharing worked without friction, and participant controls stayed easy to manage.
• Hybrid meetings follow the same playbook. In setups with some people in a room and others remote, the flow stays the same. Muting, hand raises, breakout rooms, and managing larger groups work predictably on both platforms.
• Reviewing past meetings works reliably on both. Once recording and transcription are enabled, replaying calls, searching transcripts, and jumping to specific moments feel similar. Where files are stored differs, but the review experience doesn't.
• Chat and lightweight collaboration work the same in-meeting. During calls, chat, reactions, and quick file sharing behave identically. This matters most in larger meetings, where people can contribute without interrupting.
• Mobile participation is fully usable, not a fallback. Joining from a phone didn't feel like a compromise on either app. Core controls were easy to reach, audio stayed clear, and video adapted smoothly even when networks changed.
• Larger meetings stay manageable. For bigger sessions, like training calls, team-wide updates, and internal presentations, both tools handled scale well. Speaker controls, muting large groups, and keeping sessions orderly worked as expected.

Now, we know what these chatbots say they can do, but the proof is in the pudding, which is why I tested them on 11 real-world tasks. 

Disclaimer: I share my experience testing the two tools as of January 2026. If you read this after a few months, some features and functionality might have evolved. The companies will be able to give you the most up-to-date information.

Zoom vs. Microsoft Teams: How they performed in real workflows

1. External client meetings

Since much of the work involves external conversations, the comparison starts by looking at how both tools handle first-time joins.

On Zoom, those meetings usually began without friction. I shared the link, the other person entered their name, and we were talking almost immediately. There wasn’t much to think about beyond the conversation itself.

External client joining interface for Zoom

I tried the same flow with Teams. When the other person was already on Microsoft 365, the join experience was smooth. When they weren’t, joining involved a few more steps like choosing how to join, confirming identity, or waiting briefly before getting in.

External client joining interface for Microsoft Teams

Both worked, but the difference showed up in how quickly the call actually began.

Winner: Zoom

2. Internal team meeting and ongoing collaboration

I ran the same recurring internal meeting on both tools — a weekly sync where conversations tend to carry over from one week to the next.

In Zoom, the meeting itself ran smoothly, and everything worked well while we were on the call. When I went back later to pull earlier context, the information was there across chat, recordings, and shared files. Zoom does offer features that support follow-ups, but in my regular use, it still felt more centered around individual meetings than a single place where the team’s ongoing work naturally sits.

Video Conferencing interface for Zoom

I tried the same meeting on Teams. During the call, I scrolled up in the channel to see earlier messages, opened the same document we had already been working on, and continued the discussion without restating context. When the meeting ended, the recording and transcript appeared in the same thread.

Video Conferencing interface for Microsoft Teams

Both handled the meeting well. But with Teams, internal meetings felt more comprehensive.

Winner: Microsoft Teams

3. File sharing and document collaboration

I tried this in a few live working sessions where we actually had to open and update documents during the call. In Zoom, we could share files in chat and open the document in Word Online or Google Docs while the meeting was going on. That worked fine for reviews and quick edits, and honestly, we did not hit any major issues while doing this.

Teams handled the same tasks well, too. The difference I noticed was more about how everything sits together, especially with Microsoft 365 files. Since the files, chat, and meeting already live in the same Teams ecosystem, moving between the conversation and the document just felt a bit smoother in real use.

Winner: Microsoft Teams

4. Whiteboarding and brainstorming 

Zoom’s whiteboard opened instantly and stayed intentionally simple. It made it easy to jot down ideas, sketch connections, and build momentum without interrupting the flow of conversation. The lightweight interface kept attention on the discussion rather than the tool, and the starter templates helped kick off ideation without adding setup overhead.

Whiteboard interface for Zoom

Teams took a more structured route. Its whiteboard came with templates and stronger ties to the Microsoft Workspace, which felt more useful when ideas needed to be organized and carried forward after the meeting.

Whiteboard interface for Microsoft Teams

They worked well in different ways depending on the goal of the session. But the Zoom whiteboard felt more intuitive.

Winner: Zoom

5. Large meetings, webinars, and town halls

I tested both tools in sessions with larger groups. Zoom felt purpose-built for these moments. Host controls were easy to manage, and attendees joined with minimal guidance. The experience stayed predictable as the group grew.

Teams worked well for internal town halls where everyone was already inside the organization. For external or mixed audiences, Zoom felt easier to run without extra coordination.

Winner: Zoom

6. Background options and visual stability

I tested both tools with virtual backgrounds enabled during live video calls, including frequent movement and transitions between talking, screen sharing, and whiteboarding.

Zoom offers a range of background options and handles background separation more neatly. Edge detection stayed consistent even with movement, and details like hair strands and hand gestures blended naturally into the background without noticeable flickering or cut-outs. Plus, it comes with cool filters. This made the video feed feel more polished during longer sessions.

Zoom comes with virtual backgrounds, filters, and virtual avatars

Teams supported virtual backgrounds but showed more visual artifacts in similar scenarios. Fine details, especially around hair and during fast movements, occasionally bled into the background or appeared clipped, becoming noticeable during extended meetings or with changing lights.

Microsoft Teams offers engaging virtual backgrounds

Winner: Zoom

7. Mobile meetings

I joined meetings from my phone on both platforms, including jumping in a few minutes late. Joining Zoom was fast and straightforward. The app opened directly into the meeting with the controls I needed front and center.

Zoom App mobile interface

On Teams, joining took slightly longer, but once inside, I could switch between chat, files, and the meeting without leaving the app. That made it easier to stay connected to the broader conversation. Speed versus continuity showed up clearly here.

Microsoft Teams mobile app interface

Winner: Zoom 

8. AI summaries and transcripts

Once we turned AI Companion on for our Zoom meetings, it just ran quietly in the background from there. After the call wrapped up, a summary was already waiting in the chat thread, including the topics we covered, decisions made, and action items. Didn't have to go looking for it anywhere.

I also tried asking AI Companion to rank the action items by priority. It actually gave a pretty sensible order based on what we'd discussed. The files we'd shared during the call were in the same thread, too, so everything stayed in one place without me having to chase anything down.

For post-meeting follow-up, that combination made a real difference.

Zoom's AI Companion

Teams transcripts came back accurate, with speaker names, timestamps, and easy to jump to a specific moment if you needed to. With Copilot enabled, the recap pulled out the key points and action items straight from the transcript. You could also just ask it what was decided or who got assigned what, which saved a lot of scrolling. Worth noting, though, the AI recap and summary features do need a separate Copilot license.

Meeting AI Summaries with Microsoft Copilot

Winner: Zoom

To broaden your comparison, our Zoom alternatives on G2 show how Zoom stacks up against other video conferencing platforms using verified user feedback.

Verdict: Which video conferencing tool should you choose?

Key insights on Zoom vs. Microsoft Teams from G2 Data

I also reviewed G2 satisfaction data and product profiles to understand how Zoom and Microsoft Teams compare across usability, adoption, and feature performance.

Here’s what stood out:

Satisfaction ratings

G2 satisfaction data shows Zoom Workplace consistently scoring high on day-to-day usability and user confidence.

• Zoom reports 92% for ease of use, 93% for ease of doing business with, and 91% for ease of admin, pointing to a product experience that feels straightforward to adopt, manage, and stick with.
• Teams still performs strongly across satisfaction categories, but the data suggests Zoom edges ahead when it comes to everyday comfort, setup clarity, and how confident users feel recommending the tool to others.

Industries represented

• Zoom Workplace shows strong adoption across information technology and services, computer software, marketing and advertising, education management, and higher education.
• Microsoft Teams is most represented in information technology and services, computer software, financial services, higher education, and hospital and health care, reflecting its deeper penetration in enterprise and regulated industries.

Highest-rated features

• Based on G2’s feature satisfaction data, Zoom Workplace scores highest for screen sharing (93%), desktop application performance (93%), and live chat (92%).
• Microsoft Teams shows its strongest feature satisfaction for live chat (93%), desktop application (93%), and presentations (92%).

Lowest-rated features

• Zoom Workplace scores lower for autonomous task execution (80%), proactive assistance (80%), and decision-making support (80%).
• Microsoft Teams reflects similar gaps, with autonomous task execution (80%), proactive assistance (81%), and decision-making features (81%).

Zoom vs. Microsoft Teams: Pricing comparison

Zoom Pricing 

• Zoom Pro (paid plan): Starts at approximately $13.33 per user/month (annual billing), includes meetings of up to 30 hours, and paid collaboration tools.
• Zoom Business: Available above Pro for larger teams. Pricing is listed on the Zoom pricing page (typically higher than Pro; exact annual rate varies by region and billing).
• Zoom Enterprise: Custom pricing. It requires contacting Zoom sales for enterprise contract rates.

Note: Meeting duration limits (e.g., a 30-hour maximum per session) apply to paid plans, such as Pro and above.

 Microsoft Teams Pricing 

• Microsoft Teams Essentials: $4 per user/month (if billed annually). Core Teams meetings with up to 30 hours.
• Microsoft 365 Business Basic: $6 per user/month (annual), includes Teams conferencing plus business productivity services.
• Microsoft 365 Business Standard: $12.50 per user/month (annual), includes Teams conferencing and desktop/web apps.

Note: Enterprise Microsoft 365 plans: Custom pricing requires contacting Microsoft for enterprise licensing.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Zoom vs. Microsoft Teams

Have more questions? Find the answers below.

Q1. Which tool is easier to use for everyday meetings? 

Zoom is generally easier to use than Microsoft Teams. G2 reviewers rate Zoom higher for ease of use, and it tends to feel more intuitive when starting or joining calls, especially for external participants.

Q2. Which platform is better for meetings with external participants?

Zoom works better for the external participant join flow. External guests usually join Zoom calls with fewer steps, while Teams can require additional confirmation depending on settings and organization policies. 

Q3. Which tool provides better video and audio quality?

Zoom delivers more consistent video and audio quality. G2 ratings place Zoom slightly higher for video conferencing quality, reflecting stable performance even as meeting size increases.

Q4. Is Zoom or Microsoft Teams better for recurring internal team meetings? 

Microsoft Teams is better for recurring internal meetings. Teams keeps chats, files, recordings, and context in the same place, which helps teams pick up where they left off.

 Q5. Which platform is better for collaboration around files and documents?

Microsoft Teams offers stronger file collaboration during and after meetings.
Teams keeps documents accessible in the same workspace and allows co-editing, while Zoom often relies on screen share and external tools. 

Q6. Which video conferencing tool works better on mobile devices?

Zoom tends to provide a smoother mobile experience. Reviewers rate Zoom’s mobile app slightly higher, especially for quick joins and on-the-go meetings. 

Q7. Which platform is better for large meetings and webinars?

Zoom is better suited for large meetings and webinars. Its webinar features, host controls, and participant management are designed for external and large-scale event use cases. 

Q8. Do Zoom and Microsoft Teams offer AI summaries and transcripts?

Both tools offer AI summaries and transcripts, but they work differently. Zoom focuses on meeting-level summaries, while Teams can tie summaries into ongoing chats, files, and channels across the workspace. 

Q9. Should teams using Microsoft 365 choose Microsoft Teams over Zoom?

Absolutely. Teams is usually better for organizations already invested in Microsoft 365. Deep Outlook, OneDrive, SharePoint, and Teams integration reduces tool switching and keeps context connected. 

Q10. Is it worth using both Zoom and Microsoft Teams together? 

Yes, you can. Many teams use both for different meeting types. Zoom is often preferred for external meetings, while Teams handles internal collaboration and recurring workflows.

Where this leaves you

What stood out while working through this comparison is how much meeting experience now shapes everything around it, including how quickly work moves forward, how easily context is recovered, and how much mental overhead is created after the call ends. Those outcomes aren’t obvious when choosing a platform, but they compound over time.

As collaboration tools continue to evolve, the strongest ones won’t be defined by how many features they add, but by how naturally they support the way teams already work. Choosing a meeting platform, then, is less about picking the “best” option and more about selecting the one that aligns with how your work actually flows.

For a broader view of the video conferencing landscape, check out G2's guide to the best video conferencing software.