We performed a comparison between Microsoft Remote Desktop Services and TeamViewer based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Remote Desktop Services slightly nudges out TeamViewer in this comparison. Microsoft Remote Desktop is a complete solution that is already a part of every Microsoft ecosystem. TeamViewer’s cost and security concerns make it less attractive for many users.
"I like the way it can assess our system."
"The solution works well as a remote desktop."
"The most valuable features are it is fast and cost-effective."
"Things can be made easier if someone is not with us or at a long distance since we can connect easily with those people. So, it's easy for us to use such features."
"Good screen draw feature and ability to use two monitors."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's simple to set up."
"I've had good experiences with Microsoft customer support."
"The most valuable feature is you do not need to know the Windows username and password to connect and see the staff screen."
"The dashboards they have are good."
"The implementation is quite straightforward."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had a problem with it."
"TeamViewer is a step ahead of solutions like, for example, AnyDesk."
"I don't know of any performance problems with TeamViewer - generally, it's a stable product."
"It was worth the investment. You can do file transfers and video calls with it. You can do a lot of copy paste stuff. E.g., if I have a file and want to place it on somebody's machine, I can just copy it off of mine and paste it right on their machine. I don't have to put it in a Dropbox account and have them log into it to pull it off. I can do all that right through TeamViewer. When you're looking at the TeamViewer screen, you think you are working on your own machine."
"The most valuable feature has been the ability to give control to others for support purposes."
"There could be some improvement in the integration of the solution."
"Microsoft Remote Desktop Services could improve by having a better application for managing multiple sessions. There used to be one but they stopped supporting it."
"There is a limitation on the number of concurrent users."
"The administrative functionality is not enough for me."
"Sometimes difficult to set up without the requirement for login credentials each time."
"It could offer better security for enterprises."
"I would like to be able to leverage it on other operating systems."
"I would like to see the hard drives work without locking up and integrate the local drives in the next release."
"It needs to have proper authentication. I would like to see in-depth integration with Google and Microsoft products, for example. It would be nice to have a cell phone version as well."
"TeamViewer is publicly available and anyone can use it. This is the reason that many organizations do not permit the use of this solution. It is not considered to be secure enough."
"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."
"I don’t see any areas where improvement is needed."
"On occasion, when remote connection process can't connect to a machine, the error messages aren't always helpful to tell you why you can't connect, as the message doesn't help troubleshoot whether it is too slow, too much interference, etc. I usually have to run to another computer and figure out what is going on, then restart it. The diagnostics could be improved."
"A feature that they could add is chat with sound to talk."
"It's pretty limited on the options they have."
"I would like it if the trial version of TeamViewer allowed you to have a connection for much longer."
More Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is ranked 2nd in Remote Access with 69 reviews while TeamViewer is ranked 1st in Remote Access with 84 reviews. Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is rated 8.2, while TeamViewer is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services writes "Easy to set up and reliable, but needs an additional control panel". 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". Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is most compared with VMware Horizon, VMware Workstation, Citrix Workspace, Parallels Access and Apache Guacamole, whereas TeamViewer is most compared with TeamViewer Tensor, Parallels Access, ISL Online, LogMeIn Central and BeyondTrust Remote Support. See our Microsoft Remote Desktop Services 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.