Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Meeting Server vs Zoom comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Meeting Server
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Zoom
Ranking in Virtual Meetings
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
209
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Virtual Meetings category, the mindshare of Cisco Meeting Server is 7.9%, up from 7.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zoom is 11.1%, down from 14.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Virtual Meetings
 

Featured Reviews

Ahmed Elrayes - PeerSpot reviewer
A scalable tool useful to hold conferences and video meetings
I use Cisco Meeting Server for conferences and video meetings, which are crucial for my company The share screen option available during conferences is one of the best features of Cisco Meeting Server. In Cisco Meeting Server, GUI is an area of concern where improvements are required. In the…
Kallol Chaudhuri - PeerSpot reviewer
Helped us tremendously in collaborating with each other and getting our work done and offers the breakout rooms feature.
We are a team located across various locations. Not in the same geographic location. We are distributed. And it's not possible to physically travel and meet people. Sometimes it's simply not possible. But Zoom has helped us tremendously in collaborating with each other and getting our work done. Without Zoom, it would have been very, very difficult. The breakout rooms feature is also helpful. For example, I have a meeting attended by hundreds of people and want to create subgroups. I typically use it for different role-play scenarios during training if we are trying to conduct some training on presentation skills. So there's a large group, which is initially trained by an instructor. Then you get instructions that the room will be split into smaller breakout rooms. I'll give you a topic, and you'll practice in these smaller groups. That's one way I use it. So it's like a simulation of a real brainstorming session I'd have in a physical space.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"What I like most about Cisco Meeting Server is its quick management. The solution also has a straightforward configuration."
"Cisco Meeting Server is an easy and less complex solution."
"You can use the Cisco Meeting Server to set up conference calls and virtual meetings. Those are the two primary functions of Meeting Server. Most people in the company are using Microsoft Teams, so we only use Meeting Server when we have an internal meeting for all staff."
"The share screen option available during conferences is one of the best features of Cisco Meeting Server."
"The UI is user-friendly and very good overall."
"Zoom has good integration and allows users to adjust the video image, other solutions I have used do not have this feature."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to connect to and conduct meetings."
"like Zoom because it's a very simple program. We have more success using Zoom with clients, partners, and everybody else. Everybody seems to be able to get Zoom. Some people struggle with Teams."
"Zoom has a security feature that allows only authorized participants to join the meeting."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The interface makes it simple to use."
"Zoom helps us because it provides a whiteboard during the meeting. This is a very good feature."
 

Cons

"In Cisco Meeting Server, GUI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Cisco Meeting Server should include a feature to control another user's screen during a remote session."
"What would make Cisco Meeting Server better is integrating it with Zoom and Teams so that you can connect or make a call through any of the two third-party solutions."
"A few features are missing on the Meetings app, like a recording function. My understanding is that you need to buy a separate recording solution. It's modular, so you have to enable some functions if you want to use them. For example, we had to enable the Mood function. Recording is the primary feature we'd like to see in the app."
"This is a difficult solution to install and it should be made easier."
"Zoom could be improved by making it easier to join meetings. It can be a bit confusing because sometimes you need meeting IDs and logins, sometimes you don't."
"Issues such as stability, particularly when many people are involved, may arise due to bandwidth rather than Zoom itself. However, Zoom could benefit from enhancements to manage large participant volumes."
"It is difficult to collaborate."
"I would like to be able to have multiple users open and collaborate on a document at the same time."
"The chat functionality in Zoom could improve."
"The product's stability needs improvement."
"I would like to see an integration with Microsoft."
"The only issue I have is that some clients have difficulty connecting to the audio side of things."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing fees are billed yearly."
"Price-wise, Cisco Meeting Server is a product that falls in a mid-range category."
"Cisco Meeting Server has reasonable licensing costs."
"The personal version that I was using is available free of charge."
"There is a free version available with time limits."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"There is a yearly license for this solution. I would like it if they offered better prices."
"The exact costs are handled on a corporate level, however, I understand that if you just want to own a license for your small business or something like that, it's around $300 a year, which is very reasonable."
"There is a licensing fee and although the price is fair, it can be a little cheaper."
"I am not paying any licensing costs for the solution."
"The solution is affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Virtual Meetings solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
26%
Government
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Educational Organization
92%
University
1%
Financial Services Firm
1%
Computer Software Company
1%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Meeting Server?
Cisco Meeting Server is an easy and less complex solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Meeting Server?
Price-wise, Cisco Meeting Server is a product that falls in a mid-range category.
What needs improvement with Cisco Meeting Server?
Cisco Meeting Server should include a feature to control another user's screen during a remote session.
LucidChart vs LucidSpark for brainstorming sessions over Zoom
Hi @Krista Thompson ​ - Yes, LucidSpark is a much more nimble and, in some ways, user-friendly tool than LucidChart. LucidSpark is designed to do a better job managing multiple users participating ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zoom?
There is a concern about the free version's forty-five-minute limit. For education use, having more affordable access through institutions would be beneficial.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Acano
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Starz
Fortinet, Veeva, Proofpoint, Box, Ticketmaster, Trend Micro, Caesars Entertainment, Santa Clara University, Pandora, Stanford Continuing Studies
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Meeting Server vs. Zoom and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.