We performed a comparison between Cisco TelePresence and TeamViewer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Virtual Meetings solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."TelePresence allows our customers to have a quick meeting while traveling and still be effective. It saves time and money."
"We have a dual screen option to enable video and content sharing."
"The configuration is a valuable."
"Telepresence's most valuable feature is keeping highly paid employees, such as executives, on the ground instead of wasting time flying around the world. So if you have the right telepresence plan and form, it's not just the video cameras and the systems behind them, it's the way you lay out your meeting room.You can have multiple offices interconnecting in a single meeting, and it looks like everybody's in the same big conference room together because the telepresence yields such a fantastic amount of clarity."
"PresenterTrack cameras improve the meeting experience."
"It was stable. So, I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable features of Cisco TelePresence are the basic standard features and the ease of use. Additionally, the configuration and integration are exemplary."
"The SpeakerTrack feature is the most valuable feature."
"TeamViewer is a step ahead of solutions like, for example, AnyDesk."
"The most valuable features of TeamViewer are the high performance and it is not complicated to use, neither for me nor for the one I'm helping."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is its ease of use and beneficial remote access."
"The pilot feature is what stands out the most. I love the ability to use the pilot feature for remote inspections. The augmented portion of the software comes in handy when I have to assist my inspectors. They use the app in the field, and they show me what they're seeing through their phones."
"It's a user-friendly product."
"I recommend it as a solution for remote disk users."
"The dashboards they have are good."
"The most valuable feature of TeamViewer is user-friendliness."
"The tool is expensive."
"I was in touch with one of our clients and they mentioned that they would like to have a holographic video conferencing. It would be great if that feature would be added."
"The price of Cisco TelePresence overall should be reduced."
"The calling features can be improved."
"MX800 comes only with one available DVI port. A few more HDMI ports will improve the system's capability."
"I would rate my experience with the initial setup a three out of ten, with ten being expensive. It was complex with badges and certificates. Too crazy."
"TeamViewer is expensive, and you get a limited number of connections for your money."
"Voice communication and screen communication or face-to-face communication could be improved."
"The product can sometimes crash."
"I'm not sure if they provide good quality audio alongside screensharing."
"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."
"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."
"The solution could be improved by enhancing the use of the mobile version to be used on phones."
Cisco TelePresence is ranked 9th in Virtual Meetings with 7 reviews while TeamViewer is ranked 3rd in Virtual Meetings with 84 reviews. Cisco TelePresence is rated 8.0, while TeamViewer is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco TelePresence writes "A scalable solution that needs some improvement in pricing and stability". 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". Cisco TelePresence is most compared with Zoom, Webex, Polycom RealPresence Clariti and Cisco Meeting Server, whereas TeamViewer is most compared with TeamViewer Tensor, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Parallels Access, ISL Online and LogMeIn Central. See our Cisco TelePresence vs. TeamViewer report.
See our list of best Virtual Meetings vendors.
We monitor all Virtual Meetings 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.
