ROI-wise, the savings from licensing have more than been eaten up by the soft costs involved in dealing with and working around TeamViewer’s feature deficiencies on the macOS Host, the terrible central management design, and the lack of support for dynamic MAC addresses.  If the TeamViewer developers get their act together and improve the product in those areas, the ROI will improve significantly.

Ultimately, however, even with all of its warts and problems, it's still the best, most reliable and most affordable remote control product, at least for our environment.

It's inefficient to travel. Without any remote support solution, if I drive out to a client, do some work, and drive back, I have the prep time and the clean-up time. I have to get gas in the car. There are all those overhead things. I go out, do three hours of billing, and charge for an hour of travel time. But it really takes most of the day. But with some kind of remote support solution, I can be concurrently overlapping my billing. If I've got a busy day on TeamViewer, for example, I can end an eight-hour day with 12 hours of billing, easily. Comparing those cases — no solution versus having a remote support solution — the ROI could be $50,000.

But compared to if I had a different remote solution in place, the efficiencies I've seen in TeamViewer, and the way that it traps things, would be saving me closer to $3,000.

If we're talking about a strict ROI, I would use the $50,000 number because there'd be ROI with that competing product as well. It allows me to be 20 percent more efficient.

Before implementing TeamViewer, I could support one person at a time over the telephone. After implementing TeamViewer, the most I've ever had were about ten connections at once. For practical purposes, it depends on your level of attention. You can be doing as many things as you want concurrently, and multiple billing if it's appropriate. But you're limited by your own attention span. I run with four large monitors on my desktop, so I've got the real estate. I can have little TeamViewer windows all over the place.

We did some rough ROI estimates years ago. The solution has proven itself. We would not want to do the job without it. When I first started the organization, I had to drive out for an hour to a remote office and do some support. It was very time-consuming. You just wasted time doing that kind of stuff. Now, you can just connect and help them. They are happier because you can give them quick turnaround resolution. They don't have to wait for you to schedule time to come out there. So, it's very beneficial and time effective on how we are able to provide quick support. We've quadrupled our effectiveness as an IT support because we have cut down on unnecessary travel time, even between floors.

The tool cuts my time in half. If it's a 40 hour week, I would say that I am saving 20 hours a week. It is really that good. The time savings are substantial. That is not including if there are issues where I would needed to have had somebody send something into me, or when you tell somebody, “Well, click on the start button," and the response is, “I can't see the start button.”

I spend half of my day using it to access somebody else's machines. If I couldn't do that, and I had to have them send the equipment to me, the shipping, hours, and lost productivity would be a huge cost.

From just a cost perspective, it pays for itself within the first month, or probably less than that. Within a few weeks, it would pay for an annual licensing fee by what you would save in time and everything else per person.

We have solved a lot using TeamViewer. While I cannot quantify this in money, without TeamViewer, we would need to call everybody and work with 1,000 clients blindly. 

It is worth the money that you pay for it.

I don't really have a firm answer for how many end-users can now be supported with one support person, versus how many could be supported in the past. We didn't really have a pre-existing field support organization. But it's very clear that by using TeamViewer and not needing to go do field views visits, that we're a million times more productive. The eight hours of travel that might've been part of a field visit to go help one customer now become eight productive hours that you can be helping other customers or doing other things.

A lot of the TeamViewer stuff is done by people who do technical support for sales or technical support for core development. If they can quickly pop into a user's computer, check something out, fix something for them, and go back to their work, they get a lot more development work done than if they have to get in a car and drive somewhere or get on a plane and fly somewhere to do that same look at the client's setup and what needs to be fixed.

If you take a $100,000-a-year employee and enable him to spend 20 minutes per service call instead of eight hours per service call, that's a pretty darn impressive return.

TeamViewer is a great value. We obviously wish it was less expensive because we want everything to be free all the time. But we do recognize that sometimes you have to pay for things, just like we try to convince our clients that they should pay for our software. 

TeamViewer is $600 or $700 per port per year, which we find that to be just fine. If we paid $100 per port per year we'd be happier, but we're very happy with the quality of the service and the capabilities that gives us. So it's been a great value for us.

I could go look up how many TeamViewer sessions we do per year, how many where we couldn't get the information through some other method, but that's where it becomes complicated to say specifically what the ROI is. 

It's clear that it's a valuable product. 

It's probably not valuable for everyone because there might be people who've got devices or systems where they have to hear it or smell it running to be able to diagnose what's going on. That's not really TeamViewer's strength. Its strength is getting visibility into a remote desktop, at least as far as we know, so that you can diagnose and treat a computer issue.

It saves me a lot of trouble. Time-wise, it is probably saving me several hours because I don't have to travel anywhere. I just wait for the time difference. With the time difference, it is really hard to talk to people halfway around the planet sometimes.

It has probably saved us several thousands of dollars because we have quick access anywhere. We don't have to worry about finding people onsite or arranging conference calls. We also save time and money with it because we don't have to send somebody onsite to troubleshoot.

We haven't seen ROI. We're using it strictly for IT and technical, internal use.

I do use it a lot for remote accessing of my computer at work. I don't have to do anything, such as turn my work computer on. It just logs right in and I can start using it. I can also log in to other peoples' computers. All you have to do is hit a button and say, "Yes, allow me in." It makes it so simple to connect. It's worth the money, even though it's a little bit expensive.

Over the past six months, we have probably saved several thousand dollars just in the cost of either my boss or me having to go up there. We can make sure stuff is turned off and on where somebody might have left something on or off, saving on the utility cost for the college.

I don't have good numbers due to the small sample size.

It has been useful and it has increased our productivity by some 400 percent. It's helped us a lot.

It's worth every penny; I would recommend it any time.

$3000+ for a corporate license was steep, I must say. But if your options are between remote support and hopping on a plane (such being the case in my company and industry), you'll make the money back in saved travel expenses alone.

We have evaluated the ROI when we started with this remote assistance solution but I don't have exactly the ROI or value.

The costs of the licenses are huge. Therefore, for a small size business company with less than 250 users in Asia, the ROI will take a long time to recover.