We performed a comparison between N-able Take Control and TeamViewer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Remote Access solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable part of N-able Take Control is being able to remotely access your customer's site. You are able to view their network. Once you have it set up, it's always available. N-able Take Control can be used even when other remote access controls have been made."
"Take Control enables you to collaborate with end users. It's for supporting a workstation where you want the person on the other side to see you moving their mouse, and you can work with them."
"It's a user-friendly product."
"TeamViewer is a scalable solution."
"It is fairly feature-rich and stable."
"The implementation is quite straightforward."
"The quality of the call and the quality of the sharing have been excellent."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is the ability to remote control a computer system. Overall it is a complete solution."
"There have been a couple of times with the handy remote access feature, where I have been asked for something at eight o'clock on a Thursday evening and it is on my desk machine, but I am driving back to my office. With TeamViewer, I can just stay at my home machine, connect to my work machine, and get the data needed without having to drive back across town."
"The best feature is the remote access and being able to control another person's computer when you're showing them something, or teaching them how to do something during training, or fixing a problem they're having."
"The dashboards I do not use because there are issues. The solution monitors your antivirus and other programs but it does not seem to work well."
"We've seen some latency problems in AWS environments. Aside from that, it's a pretty solid service."
"In the next release, I would prefer to have a voice integration and collaboration feature to support multiple teams simultaneously."
"I didn't like the fact that you had to install a client for remote support. If you didn't install the client, you were very limited in terms of what you could do. For a whole enterprise, it is just not an easy task to install a client on everything. Even if you're using SCCM, it is an undertaking. For transient clients that you don't necessarily support a hundred percent of the time, it would be nice to be able to connect to them and support their issues without having to install something on their machines. In my previous company, we were looking at this solution as being a collaborative tool for the enterprise in terms of video conferencing, calling, and scheduling. They were working on bringing a bunch of products together to make their suite a little more integrated, but it really wasn't at the point where we wanted it to be in terms of integration. We looked at it, reviewed it, and tested it out a bit. We then decided to go with Microsoft Teams. It has the clunkiness of having separate modules that aren't totally integrated. There are different methods for doing different things, which makes it a little bit more complicated. There should be the same way whether you are doing remote support or just calls."
"Support for mobile devices from Linux has been missing since the Native client was rolled out. This was a nice option, especially when trying to walk somebody who was struggling to understand something on their phone."
"I have noticed that when I access another person's computer, sometimes the tab is visible, and sometimes it is not, which can be difficult."
"You can't configure multiple, unattended control passwords on the Mac. On the Mac, there's only one. On Windows, there are multiple unattended control passwords. I have people in different departments. My infrastructure people need to control a server and my developers may need to go into that same server. But I don't want them to have the same password... on the Mac, it can be done but it's extremely clunky and problematic."
"The file transfer functionality crashes sometimes."
"We'd like to be able to work from mobile to desktop and vice versa. We'd like more mobility."
"Sometimes, the app can be a little cumbersome when accessing certain aspects of the program."
N-able Take Control is ranked 19th in Remote Access with 2 reviews while TeamViewer is ranked 1st in Remote Access with 85 reviews. N-able Take Control is rated 9.0, while TeamViewer is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of N-able Take Control writes "Valuable remote access feature, highly stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TeamViewer writes "Solid cross-platform remote control, but with kludgy central management and some serious feature issues on macOS". N-able Take Control is most compared with Dameware Remote Support and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, whereas TeamViewer is most compared with TeamViewer Tensor, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Parallels Access, ISL Online and Check Point Remote Access VPN. See our N-able Take Control vs. TeamViewer report.
See our list of best Remote Access vendors.
We monitor all Remote Access reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.