Zoom became a verb during COVID. “Let’s Zoom” means video call regardless of which platform you’re actually using. The company went from relative obscurity to market dominance in months, and that position has stuck even as competitors improved their offerings.

But Zoom’s not necessarily the best choice for everyone. Google Meet integrates seamlessly if you’re in Google Workspace. Microsoft Teams makes sense for organizations already on Microsoft 365. Newer options like Around or Whereby offer different approaches to video meetings. And for some use cases, simple tools like Jitsi or Google Meet’s free tier work fine.

Understanding when to stick with Zoom versus when alternatives make sense requires looking beyond feature checklists to actual usage patterns and integration needs.

Zoom: The Standard Everyone Knows

Zoom’s dominance comes from being reliable when it mattered. In March 2020, when everyone suddenly needed to work from home, Zoom handled the load while competitors struggled. That built trust and market share that persists.

The core experience is good. Video and audio quality are consistently solid across different network conditions. The interface is familiar to almost everyone, reducing friction when meeting with external people. Screen sharing works reliably with good controls for who can share.

Features cover most needs: breakout rooms for splitting large meetings, recording (with paid plans), reactions and polling, virtual backgrounds, waiting rooms for security. The paid tiers ($14.99-19.99/user/month depending on plan) add capacity, cloud recording storage, and advanced features.

Downsides are mostly minor annoyances. The 40-minute limit on free meetings is deliberately restrictive to push paid upgrades. The constant upsell prompts get annoying. And Zoom’s had occasional security and privacy controversies that raised concerns about their practices.

Integration with other tools is adequate but not exceptional. Zoom connects to calendars, Slack, and major platforms, but it’s not as seamless as Google or Microsoft’s own products integrating with their ecosystems.

Use Zoom when you need to meet with external people frequently (they probably have Zoom), reliability is critical, or you need specific features like webinar hosting that Zoom does well.

Google Meet: Ecosystem Integration

Google Meet is Google’s enterprise video solution (replacing the old Hangouts). If you’re on Google Workspace, Meet is already there, already integrated, and already paid for. Using something else means paying twice.

The integration is the selling point. Meetings created in Google Calendar automatically have Meet links. Joining is one click from calendar or Gmail. Recordings save directly to Google Drive. For teams living in Google’s ecosystem, friction is minimal.

Quality has improved significantly. Google’s network infrastructure and video compression mean meetings handle poor connections reasonably well. The interface is clean and simple—maybe too simple for users wanting advanced features.

Free tier is generous: meetings up to an hour with up to 100 participants. Workspace accounts get longer meetings and more participants depending on tier. For many small teams, the free tier is adequate.

Limitations include fewer features than Zoom. Breakout rooms were added late and are less flexible. Polling is basic. Third-party integrations are limited. And if you’re meeting with people outside Google’s ecosystem, they need Google accounts to join (which creates friction compared to Zoom’s anonymous joining).

Use Google Meet if you’re already on Google Workspace and most of your meetings are internal. Don’t use it if you frequently meet with external parties or need advanced features Zoom provides.

Microsoft Teams: The Enterprise Default

Teams is Microsoft’s collaboration platform that includes video conferencing alongside chat, file sharing, and app integrations. For organizations on Microsoft 365, it’s the standard.

Teams does everything. Chat, video calls, screen sharing, file collaboration, app integration—it’s a full collaboration suite rather than just video conferencing. This makes it powerful but complex. The interface is busy, navigation isn’t always intuitive, and there’s a learning curve.

For video specifically, quality is good. Microsoft’s infrastructure handles large meetings well. Features like background blur, together mode (arranges participants like an auditorium), and recording work well. Integration with Outlook calendar is seamless for Microsoft shops.

The problem is Teams tries to be too much. If you just want to do a quick video call, navigating Teams’ interface to start a meeting feels like overkill. The mobile app is particularly cluttered. And performance can be sluggish, especially on older computers.

Teams is free for personal use with limitations, but most organizations using it have Microsoft 365 licenses that include it. Pricing is bundled, so comparing directly to Zoom is tricky—you’re paying for the whole Microsoft suite.

Use Teams if your organization is committed to Microsoft 365 and wants unified collaboration platform. Don’t use it if you just need video calls without the surrounding ecosystem.

Whereby: Browser-First Simplicity

Whereby takes a different approach: meetings happen in browsers without downloads. You get a permanent room URL (whereby.com/yourname) that people can join anytime. It’s simple and friction-free.

The simplicity is refreshing. No accounts required for participants, no downloads, no complicated setup. You send your Whereby link, people click it, they’re in the meeting. For casual meetings or talking to people who aren’t tech-savvy, this reduces friction significantly.

Features are basic: video, audio, screen sharing, chat. That’s it. No breakout rooms, no polling, minimal controls. For simple meetings, that’s fine. For complex facilitation, it’s limiting.

Pricing is per-room, not per-user. The free tier gives you one room with up to four participants. Paid plans ($6.99-13.99/month per room) add capacity and features. For consultants or small teams doing mostly one-on-one or small group calls, this pricing model can be cheaper than per-user tools.

Video quality is decent but not exceptional. It works reliably on good connections but struggles more than Zoom on poor networks.

Use Whereby for simple meetings where ease of access matters more than features, or if you do mostly small meetings and like the per-room pricing model.

Around: Spatial Video Experiment

Around tried to rethink video calls with spatial audio and interface innovations. Participants appear in floating circles rather than grids. Your camera shows in a small circle you can move around rather than a giant rectangle.

The idea is reducing “Zoom fatigue” by making video less overwhelming. Small participant windows, screen sharing that doesn’t hide people entirely, and walk-around mode where you can minimize video while still hearing spatial audio.

In practice, it’s different but not necessarily better. The floating circles are neat initially, then feel gimmicky. Spatial audio is interesting but requires good headphones to appreciate. And different isn’t always an improvement—people are used to standard video call interfaces.

Around’s been struggling to find product-market fit. They’ve pivoted features several times, and it’s unclear they’ve built something people prefer enough to switch from established tools.

Try Around if you’re curious about alternative interface paradigms or suffer from video fatigue and want to experiment. Don’t commit to it for important meetings yet.

Jitsi: Open Source Option

Jitsi is the open source video conferencing solution. It’s free, you can self-host it, and there’s a public instance (meet.jit.si) anyone can use.

The public instance is remarkably functional for free. Start a meeting by going to meet.jit.si/randomname, share the link, people join. No accounts, no limits, no cost. Quality is okay—not Zoom-tier but acceptable for casual calls.

The catch is reliability. The public instance can be slow or glitchy during peak times. There’s no support, no guarantees. For important meetings, you’re taking risks.

Self-hosting solves this but requires technical expertise. You run your own Jitsi server, control everything, and aren’t dependent on external services. For privacy-conscious organizations with IT staff, this appeals. For normal teams, it’s too much hassle.

Use Jitsi’s public instance for casual calls where free matters more than perfect reliability. Self-host if you have technical capability and need privacy. Don’t rely on it for critical business meetings.

What Actually Matters

Most video conferencing tools have converged on adequate quality and core features. Zoom, Meet, and Teams all handle basic calls fine. Differences are in integration, pricing, and advanced features.

Integration matters most. If you live in Google Workspace, Meet’s seamless integration saves friction daily. If you’re on Microsoft 365, Teams makes sense despite complexity. If you use neither, Zoom’s neutrality is valuable.

External meeting frequency matters. If you mostly meet with internal team members, platform choice is flexible. If you constantly meet with clients, partners, or external people, using what they already have (usually Zoom) reduces friction.

Feature needs matter. If you need webinars, breakout rooms, advanced polling, or specific integrations, compare capabilities. For simple calls, basic features everyone offers are sufficient.

Cost matters for small teams. Google Meet’s free tier, Whereby’s per-room pricing, or Jitsi’s completely free option can make sense when budgets are tight. For larger organizations, per-user costs of Zoom or bundled costs of Teams/Meet are rounding errors.

The Switching Decision

Switching video conferencing platforms has real costs. Everyone needs to learn new tools, meeting links change, integrations need reconfiguring. This creates inertia that’s rational to respect.

Only switch if you have clear reasons: significant cost savings, much better integration with tools you use, features you genuinely need that current platform lacks, or reliability problems with current choice.

Don’t switch because a new tool seems slightly nicer or has trendy features. The transition friction costs more than incremental improvements deliver.

For new teams starting fresh, choose based on ecosystem integration first, then features and cost. If you’re on Google Workspace, start with Meet. If you’re on Microsoft 365, use Teams. If neither, Zoom is safe default.

Hybrid Reality

Many organizations end up using multiple platforms. Zoom for external meetings because everyone has it. Teams or Meet for internal collaboration because it integrates better. Maybe Whereby for quick one-on-ones because it’s simple.

This creates some complexity but matches reality. No single tool is perfect for every use case. Using the right tool for each situation makes sense if you can keep it manageable.

Practical Recommendations

For small teams (under 20 people) not committed to Google or Microsoft ecosystems: Zoom is the safe choice. Everyone knows it, it works reliably, external people have it.

For teams on Google Workspace: Use Google Meet for internal meetings, maybe keep Zoom for external calls if budget allows. The integration benefits are worth it.

For teams on Microsoft 365: Use Teams for collaboration and internal meetings. Consider Zoom for external calls if Teams friction bothers your external contacts.

For solo consultants or tiny teams doing mostly one-on-one calls: Whereby’s simplicity and per-room pricing might work better than per-user tools.

For privacy-focused organizations with technical staff: Self-hosted Jitsi gives complete control at cost of operational overhead.

And for everyone: whatever you choose, learn to use it well. Better to maximize one tool than constantly switch between mediocre implementations of multiple tools.

Video conferencing is infrastructure. Pick something reliable that integrates with your workflow, then stop thinking about it and focus on actual work.