It is a scalable solution. It is a solution for enterprise businesses where scalability is key for enterprises. 

TeamViewer seems to scale well in one sense, being easily mass-deployable to thousands of Hosts.  

But the badly-designed Groups and kludgy nature of the central management, combined with significant missing features on the macOS Host and lack of support for dynamic MAC addresses on VMs is a problem with scalability in a complex organization, and TeamViewer should address these major problems ASAP...right now they're just lucky that the other available cross-platform remote control solutions actually suck more than they do. ;-)

It has the potential to add the users so it is quite scalable.

It's a scalable product. We haven't had any issues with this aspect of the solution as well. 

We have 6,000 people using the solution right now. We do have plans to increase usage. 

It has organizational tools and it's nicely scalable. If I grew the business to 30 or 50 people, consultants, it would still be an excellent solution.

The only time I'd need to expand the technology is if I hire. If I hire another person, I likely wouldn't even increase the channel usage right away because it's based on concurrent usage. Joanne is an intermittent user, so we're not looking for anything extra right now.

There is TeamViewer's ITbrain that we could look into more but, again, it's not really something that we do. I stay in my lane with the accounting software. I'm not looking to manage my clients' IT infrastructure or to manage their PCs. If I see something that's out of the ordinary, 90 percent of my clients are going to have an IT person who handles that side of things. I handle anything that has to do with inventory and accounts receivable, and general ledgers, and debits and credits, and accounting software. Anything that touches on those things, then I'm in. But if they're having problems with their computers running slowly, I refer that out.

Each of my IT staff has that ability to hop on and do things at any time. We can assist not only from our machine, but from our iPad. If I needed to hop on somebody else's computer, I can do support from my PC, iPad, or even my smartphone. It's very portable as to how I can work. I like the fact that I can do support on different platforms.

With the small IT group that I have, I do want to be able to quickly support our entire organization without having to run my staff to death.

We have 2,000 to 3,000 TeamViewer users in our organization.

You could add as many users on here as you want. We probably access around 500 devices.

We have eight licenses now. Therefore, we have eight users who can remote access machines.

I have three monitors that I use. While it's not real common, there are times when I'm on three to four people's machines at one time trying to fix different things. I imagine if I had more monitors that could be organized enough to make sure I am using the right stuff on the right machines, I could probably do whatever our Internet could handle. I could probably do 20 people at a time.

As we add more PCs (or whatever devices), TeamViewer gets added onto them. I use TeamViewer all day long, like it is my right arm. I haven't run a report in quite awhile, but I spend probably half of my day using the software on somebody else's machine.

The solution can scale well. 

We are a team of 11, however, only four to five of us use the solution. It's used occasionally, not extensively. 

We have a limited business license. We can have 10 people on it at the same time. We are doing support all over the world. With the version that we have, we are allowed to have 10 people using it at the same time. For example, because we are working with engineering of other groups, if we go over 10 users, the eleventh person who wants to use TeamViewer cannot.

We have about 1,000 clients. Our support team is six or seven guys, plus engineering. Though we are not all connected at the same time. For example, if five of us are support 1,000 clients, then individually, we are supporting 200 clients each.

We are sending out computers every day. So, we will probably double the solution in a couple of years. Right now, it's okay. There are some days when we need to ask somebody, "Close your session because we need another guy from engineering to connect." So, we will probably need more licenses in the future.

We only manage 30 devices. I could see, if we had a thousand devices, that the management part might become a little more complicated. Given that you can separate different devices into groups, and you can give different people access to different groups, it might be relatively straightforward. Huge scalability isn't something that we've had to deal with yet.

The monitoring, asset management, and endpoint protection are things we just haven't had the time or the mental energy to test. If they work as advertised, those seem like they'd be great features for simplifying remote management. In terms of expanding use of TeamViewer, those are next on the list. 

We'll be looking at endpoint protection; the patch-management and device health monitoring. Those are things we're very interested in. We want to do them to see how much, if any, additional CPU load and communication load is put on the device. We are a little concerned that we're going to clog up these fairly lightweight devices out in the field with a lot of administrative overhead instead of leaving them to do what they're supposed to do. We would probably do one or two as a test, just to see how it goes, and then start to crank it up. We have about 30 devices in the field that we monitor with TeamViewer; it's not like we've got tens of thousands.

It scales pretty well. Every time that we get a new machine, we install TeamViewer on it. However, we only buy a new machine every 14 months or so.

There are no obvious limitation to how many end users that we can support. E.g., our home office has six test locations with an entire development team and QA team where have 50 to 60 people.

Our development, QA, and IT teams have access to TeamViewer. Our development team uses it the most. The IT team, which is about eight people, uses it a little. The QA team use it as needed, but not daily. On and off, 20 people use it, but 60 people have access to it.

The scalability has great potential. We could be using this for a lot more people in our company.

Our company has free products in use, like Microsoft Teams. The problem with Teams is that it's not as clear. It locks up and sometimes just doesn't work as well. But it's free, and everybody's using it, so it's hard to get people to move to something that's not free.

Although TeamViewer is a little more dependable and works much better, the cost is high. I can have a meeting online and have 35 people on it, as long as they have installed TeamViewer or log in to the website. They can all get on and they don't have to pay. But since everybody is using another product, and they've been using it for years, it's hard to scale up and get them convinced to use something different.

The scalability of TeamViewer is good. However, I now use AnyDesk because I had a difficult time connecting to my clients.

I am the only one using the solution.

The solution is scalable. It supports many devices. 

There might be 120 users of the solution at this point. 

Most of the stuff resides between my computer and my boss's computer. My boss is the director of facilities and I'm the maintenance supervisor.

Eventually, when we're done (hopefully not soon after the first of the year), we're going to be able to go to every building on campus and deploy what we need to look at. That way we don't have to worry about whether we have lost a phone signal, the wireless on campus is working right, etc. Eventually, we'll have a machine on campus that we can just go to and access what we need.

We have 13 licenses. For the time being, the solution is fine and we do not plan to increase usage.  

We have 200 people in my company, but not all of them are using TeamViewer. We do not have plans to increase usage.

The scalability has been okay. We haven’t seen any issues there.

We have 200 people using the solution right now.

I'd rate the scalability at a seven out of ten. Sometimes I have faced issues with adapting, to gaining a new acquisition. I haven't been using the latest version, so it might be improved. Also, it is now cloud-based. It may have grown in scalability.

We have 20 to 25 users on the solution. 

Scalability is hard to say, because I am the lowest scaled out degree of utilization. The clients that I use it on are relatively small. I am the only person using the tool at my company, as the founding member.

I am using it fairly extensively. It is on almost every customer computer that I support. Anyone who has a maintenance agreement with me will have a copy of it. At this time, that is under 100 customers.

I have done work for people who have used it in larger environments: Hundreds upon hundreds of teams running it. So, I have seen it perform well in a huge environment. I have seen it perform well in a large, multitenant environment. 

I don't have experience with scalability. I'm not using it for commercial purposes, only for personal activities. I do not plan to increase usage in the future. 

There is a limit on the number of people who can attend a meeting. Currently, I use Zoom for our pre-construction meetings because I can have up to 25 people. I would like to use TeamViewer, but I can't have everybody participate at the same time. Zoom allows me to have more people.

The scalability of TeamViewer is good.

I rate the scalability of TeamViewer a nine out of ten.

We have approximately 2,000 people in my organization that is using this solution.

This is a scalable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

It's easy to scale, but the licensing restricts how many people you can add.

It’s a scalable solution. The product is easy to expand.

More of our usage is coming from support, and we are about 18 support engineers we have.

It scales. Since we have the corporate license, we're not limited to any number of machines. We install it on all our devices. The scalability is fine.

Between people who have a laptop or a desktop, and some of them have both, about 100 people utilize it. It's the company standard.

It is scalable. We have more than 20 users in our company.

TeamViewer is easy to scale. It is a scalable solution.

We have two or three users in my department.

I’ve never had any issues with scaling the solution.

About three or four people use the solution in my organization. While we don’t have plans to increase usage, we might down the line.

There have been no issues with scalability.

It seems to be scalable, however, people just use it one to one. 

In my company, I just use it. I don't know of anyone else int eh company that leverages it. 

I would say it is easy to scale. At my company, I am the only one using it at the moment because I deal with the IT stuff. When I was working for an IT company, the whole department used TeamViewer to connect remotely to our client's machines.

We have approximately 20 people using this solution in my organization.

The scalability of the solution is very good. A company shouldn't have any issues with scaling.

Just the administrators, like myself, have access to the solution. Everybody else gets support through the product via us.

We do plan to continue to use the service.

I’ve seen it run and connect to a small 500-1000 end-devices company without a problem. At a higher level, I’m not sure, but it’s promising. I’m sure they have some big names in their portfolio.

TeamViewer is used worldwide and it works well. At the beginning of the solution, there was some lagging but those issues were resolved. There are many people using computers and IT support and they only use AnyDesk or TeamViewer. The scalability is good.

Once again, we have only occasionally encountered scalability issues; not often enough to worry us.

We have approximately 300 users at a few offices using TeamViewer.

We have not had any problems with the scalability of TeamViewer.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution. If more users come then we will give to purchase more licenses.

The solution could have better scalability.

We have six people in my organization that use TeamViewer.

It's one of the best in my opinion, especially the pro which even multinational companies could use.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 10 percent of our workforce using TeamViewer which includes all departments.

I have found TeamViewer to be scalable.

I have approximately three users that use this solution in my organization. We do not have plans to increase usage.

No, it is easily scalable.

Scaling this solution is very easy. There are currently more than 200 users of this solution at my company. 

TeamViewer is scalable.

We have approximately 200 people using this solution in my organization.

We have only used TeamViewer for approximately three or four users maximum for logging in at the same session. We have not tested the scalability.

We have approximately 20 users using TeamViewer. We do not have plans to increase usage.

I believe it is scalable, but the caveat is installing the client. 

In one of the organizations, we used it for a health system, and we were supporting 16 hospitals. More recently, I used it in a small engineering architecture firm, and we supported a couple of hundred people through six different offices.

I have not had any scalability issues. It’s worked really well for one-machine access for home use, as well with 30+ servers and multiple open connections.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

No issues encountered.

TeamViewer is a scalable solution.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues yet.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

The solution is scalable.

I am not familiar with the scalability of TeamViewer.

We are a small organization, with 20 employees, and we all use this solution.

We don't have plans to increase our usage, at this time.

I encountered no scalability issues.

It's been able to scale for our needs.