TeamViewer Reviews

We use it for remote access to other machines. That was the main reason why we bought it. It is for our help desk and support guys to access remote users' machines.

Our users have it on their laptops. We can also do a bit of remote support for Apple devices, but it is basically a screen share. You can just see their screen. You can't manipulate anything, but you can see what they are looking at on their screens. Therefore, it's mostly for laptops, desktop machines, and the PC environment.

It is mostly for the regular support, for anybody who is having issues with a machine.

I use the solution quite a bit. I love it.

It provides efficiency, even if it is something as simple as just maintenance, something that is broken, adding something, a walk-through, or doing training. It is a great tool.

The remote connect process is super simple. As long as the user has an Internet connection and can get on the Internet somewhere, whether they are at home (on their WiFi), using portable Internet (Jetpack), or if they stop in a Starbucks to get on the Internet, I can connect to them. That is what is really convenient.

It was worth the investment. You can do file transfers and video calls with it. You can do a lot of copy paste stuff. E.g., if I have a file and want to place it on somebody's machine, I can just copy it off of mine and paste it right on their machine. I don't have to put it in a Dropbox account and have them log into it to pull it off. I can do all that right through TeamViewer. When you are looking at the TeamViewer screen, you think you are working on your own machine.

It is really easy to use. If I can get a machine on the Internet, I can get on it and fix whatever is wrong with it. I keep an individual list of all of our machines that TeamViewer is installed on. So, I have all the IDs, etc. This makes it easy for me to get to their machines.

This saves a ton of time. A guy can call me, who is out on the road, and say, “Hey, I left my machine on, and it is at home. Can you go in and..." either install software or fix something, because something is not working right, etc. Then, I can remote into his machine and fix stuff, before he even gets home. This rather than try to walk him through fixing something, which isn't always the easiest. So, I can jump on and fix something in five minutes, which would probably take an hour normally.

You don't need to be an IT professional to use it.

If they could figure out a little better solution for the iOS stuff other than just a screen share, even though it's an Apple thing, and Apple doesn't like to give up control of their devices. If they ever got to that point, and I could manipulate an iPad or iPhone, that would be awesome. Since we have a bunch of iPad users who are struggling with doing different things, it would be nice to be able to just jump on and actually show them, "Here, do this, this, and this." Similar to what we do with the laptops, e.g. for training.

We have probably had it three to four years. It has been quite a while.

The stability has been really good. I can probably count on one hand how many times that it wasn't available or that they had some sort of an outage, which has been pretty brief. I don't ever think it's ever been longer than an hour, and that has been rare. It is really stable.

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 technical support has been great. The couple of times that I have ever needed anything, I will send an email. I receive a reply back pretty quickly, then a follow up. They will let me know, "Hey, somebody is either going to call you, or you will get an email follow up." It depends on what the question is, but I get something back very quickly. If I needed to get another license, I could send an email right now and have a license in probably 15 minutes.

We had another software that we used for a while called Virtual Network Connection (VNC), which allowed us to access machines. The problem with that solution was that it had to be on a VPN connection. They had to be connected to our network, so it was a lot more difficult to be able to get on their machines. For those machines, we added TeamViewer. Now, every time that they boot up the users' machines, it launches if they are on the Internet. It connects, and I can see whose machines are on and whose aren't.

The VPN solution was through Bell Labs at one time and has been around a long long time. It was a free solution that you just download off the Internet, if you want to. While it works okay, it's not the greatest. The problem with it is that you still need a VPN connection to our network for it to work. Because it is point-to-point, it won't go through the Internet. With TeamViewer, if the machine is on the Internet, it doesn't matter where on the globe the device is, it works. With the VNC software, you have to connect back to our network on a private connection, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The VNC solution was cumbersome to use. TeamViewer is so much easier.

The initial setup is real easy. We have the software loaded on all the machines that we send out. You just click on the icon to let it load. We put a username in it, then we set up an access password, and it's done. That is it.

It literally takes probably about two to three minutes from start to finish.

We did everything ourselves.

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.

The cost of the licenses depends on how you buy them. They just had a buy one get one free deal going, and they do that every once in a while. Where you buy one license, and they will give you the second one free, or you can try to get discounts. Most of our licenses that we have we tried to do something like that just to save some money. 

A rough estimate of our user cost is $500 per user annually. It is very cheap.

About a year ago today, an add-on channel was $232 dollars, but that was pro-rated because it was at the end of the month.

The only issue that I ever did have with it, and this was quite awhile back, was we were trying to get one of our licenses applied to a user. Because it was a user who had a license and we had previously removed it, then we wanted to give it back to them, and for some reason TeamViewer kept saying that the user already existed. We were like, "Well, no, that person left, and now, they are back again. " However, we threw them an email, and they fixed it. They said, “Try it now,” and it worked.

There were a couple of other vendors that we looked at, but we just liked TeamViewer. One of the guys that I work with had used this solution before, so it was sort of his suggestion. He had tried it at his place that he had worked before. and said, “We ought to try this, because we'll really liked it." So, we got its demo and had it for a couple of days. Then, I said, “I'm sold. This stuff is awesome.”

I haven't found anything else nor has anybody has pointed me in another direction saying, "Oh, you should use this instead, as this is way better." 

It is easy to use. It is a no-brainer.

The only access is from the IT department to the machines. Users don't utilize anything to remote control their own machines. That's typically an IT function.

We really don't need any type of tracking.

We use TeamViewer for support, controlling our ~2,500 end-user computers and our ~60 servers.  Our environment is primarily macOS, with about 95% of end-users on Macs, but our servers split between Windows and macOS.  We also have some digital signage devices that run Linux, and we use TeamViewer to control them as well.

We ran TeamViewer concurrently with LogMeIn for about year as we evaluated TeamViewer as a replacement.  TeamViewer's superior remote quality (especially in low-bandwidth situations) and ease of mass deployment, combined with LogMeIn's serious and longstanding bugs led us to recently discontinue LogMeIn in favor of TeamViewer.

Coming from LogMeIn, TeamViewer's remote control quality, Host reliability, file-transfer capabilities and ability to support multiple simultaneous controllers on a Host have been a great improvement.

TeamViewer's simultaneous-controller/tech licensing is better for us than LogMeIn's device-based licensing, because we don't have to worry as much about maintaining devices in the list as a driver of licensing costs.

TeamViewer's cross-platform nature is important to us, as we are about 95% macOS, and our IT organization is all-Mac, so we often use our Macs to control Windows machines.

TeamViewer is very fast, with very high fidelity and visual quality, in both high- and low-bandwidth situations, far better than our experience with LogMeIn.

TeamViewer's support for multiple Controllers on a Host is very convenient, allowing multiple techs to collaborate to help an end-user or to look at a server.  With LogMeIn, additional techs attempting to control a Host would either just mysteriously not be able to connect (there was no message or other indicator that the Host was already being controlled by someone else), or they would accidentally kick off the first Controller on the Host, which was inefficient and confusing.

Mass-deployment options for Hosts are excellent, making it easy to mass deploy on both macOS and Windows, and you can pre-configure the Hosts with settings and custom branding as needed.  Having said that, the experience with individual installations is nowhere as slick as LogMeIn, however: installing TeamViewer manually and getting everything configured is much more annoying and time-consuming than LogMeIn.

TeamViewer's file-transfer features are useful and comprehensive, with two options:  1) a drag-and-drop transfer mechanism for small files, and 2) a full-fledged file-transfer dialog that allows file tree browsing on both the Host and Controller.

TeamViewer is also free to try for personal use; as a result of that, myself and many of my staff were already familiar with the product from our experience supporting friends and family. That feature directly led to us being able to test TeamViewer extensively in everyday use, and as we looked for alternatives to LogMeIn, our familiarity with TeamViewer from personal use helped. LogMeIn previously offered the same free personal-use license but they discontinued that offering, which in my opinion was a very shortsighted move...and one that made me appreciate TeamViewer even more.

While TeamViewer has some great benefits, there are also some significant challenges and bugs. The biggest problem in our environment is that it's difficult, or sometimes even impossible, to properly manage granular access to a Host. It's a huge problem that mostly affects the Mac platform, but even with Windows Hosts the entire concept of how access to Hosts is configured centrally is a bit of a mess, especially compared to the true elegance of how LogMeIn worked.

With LogMeIn, we could centrally assign techs to a Group of Hosts, and those Techs could control that entire group of Hosts.  Even a one-off contractor could be temporarily or permanently given access to a Host, just using their email address. In addition to Group-based assignments, you could assign additional Hosts individually to a tech, so that they could control a single additional Host in addition to the main Host Group(s) that they had access to. It was extremely elegant, easy ton configure, made instant sense, and worked perfectly.  For example, I could have a group called "Servers" in LogMeIn, and I could give my infrastructure staff access to all of those servers. If I also wanted one of my Developers to be able to access a couple of those servers, I just gave them access to those individual Hosts in LogMeIn Central.

By comparison, TeamViewer is a complete mess. The way they do it is a total nightmare, and it does not work well. In TeamViewer, Techs can be given access to Host Groups...but a TeamViewer Host can't be in more than one Group...and Groups is the only way that you can give access to a user.  So the kind of granular control, giving access to Group(s) but also being able to give access to individual Hosts, is completely missing.  The workarounds for this are messy:  you can either split off any Hosts that may need individual control by other users into separate Groups, or you can have the Techs that need individual access manually add the Hosts to their "My Computers (Local)" Group in their own client, having to know the Host ID, etc.

In addition, the administration of Groups and access to Hosts in general is fragmented and confusing, with strange limitations. For example, let's say one of my departments needs to create a Group of Hosts. Only the individual tech who created the Group can control it: no one else can change the name or make other changes...only that tech that created it and  therefore "owns" it can. TeamViewer's "best practice" recommendation is to use a generic "Master" account to create and manage all Groups, having to login with that Master account rather than your own individual account, which is bad for many reasons, including making MFA more difficult and it has serious security and management implications.  

By contrast in LogMeIn, when a privileged administrator creates a Group, it just belongs to the organization, other similarly-privileged administrators can manage the Group, other techs can see it, and it all makes total, elegant sense.  Hosts can be assigned to multiple Groups or individual Techs, etc: it's extremely flexible and straightforward.

TeamViewer's macOS Host is unfortunately not up to scratch with the Windows Host: it's missing some extremely important features. I sincerely hope that the TeamViewer macOS development team is going to address the problems in the near future.

For example, you can't configure multiple "unattended control" passwords on the macOS Host, to give Host access to different departments or individual users but using different passwords. The Windows Host, by contrast, allows multiple unattended control passwords. Another way to accomplish this on the Windows Host is via Windows OS authentication, allowing users with either Windows local or central Active Directory (AD) credentials to authenticate to TeamViewer. This feature is also missing on the macOS Host:  there's no way to authenticate using local macOS accounts (which LogMeIn allowed), nor can you authenticate using AD credentials, even if the Mac is bound to AD.  So on the macOS Host, there's exactly one unattended-control password to control that Host, which is a big problem in my environment with giving granular control to server Hosts.

There is a workaround, but it's completely obnoxious: TeamViewer has an automatic Host-generated password, one that usually changes after every session. It's designed for the local user who's using the Host machine to be able to give a tech a one-time password for a single support session, and the password changes the next time. There is a Host setting, however, that instructs the Host to keep that random password the same after each session, so I can use that as a bad hack to allow individual techs to control Hosts where they shouldn't know the main unattended-control passsword (after they add the Host manually in their "My Computers (Local)" Group....sigh).  Unfortunately, this workaround breaks when you restart the Host or relaunch TeamVIewer on the Host, as even with the "Don't Change" setting for the random password, it still changes whenever TeamViewer Host launches.  So after every update or reboot, we have to distribute the new random password to some techs...time-consuming and messy.

Another big issue with the macOS Host is that it does not have a method of avoiding locking the screen at the end of a session. The setting to lock the Host's screen after a control session seems fairly random, and if the controlling tech forgets to manually disable that "feature" during the session, the user (or server) gets the screen locked in their face when the tech finishes.  That causes a lot of problems, especially with some of our servers that need to remain unlocked and by annoying the heck out of users.  On the Windows Host, there is an Advanced setting to instruct the Host to never lock its screen after a remote session, but that setting is missing on the macOS Host.

There are some miscellaneous features missing on the macOS Host, like auto-hiding the TeamViewer panel and preventing accidental quitting of TeamViewer. These features were deemed necessary (and they are) in the past and thus were implemented on the Windows Host: they should also be available on the macOS Host.

Another issue concerns Windows virtual machines. Unfortunately, TeamViewer has historically depended on the Host's MAC address as part of generating the unique TeamViewer ID, because the MAC address was a fairly immutable thing back in the day. However modern virtual machines (VMs) have dynamic MAC addresses, which means that suddenly a Host gets a new TeamViewer ID, and you have no idea what it is, with no way to control the VM.  TeamViewer Tech Support tried to help with some workarounds to try to assign static TeamViewer IDs, but none were successful.  Their recommendation is to manually manage MAC addresses on VMs, which is a non-starter in clustered environments where dynamic MAC addressing is needed.  TeamViewer needs to stop depending on MAC addresses as a part of generating the TeamViewer ID:  LogMeIn figured it out and so TeamViewer should be able to.

A final concern is the accidental renaming of Hosts with an unattended-control password.  As we've increased the use of TeamViewer, we've found that our techs accidentally rename Hosts in the background while they think they're entering the unattended password for that Host. The Host actually gets renamed with the unattended control password, which is obviously a huge security issue.  We're trying to be mindful of that bug to prevent it from happening, but it's extremely problematic.

TeamViewer is very reliable. Our major problem with LogMeIn was that it would just turn itself off randomly on Hosts, and LogMeIn Support could never explain for fix it... we literally tried for about two years with them. When we implemented TeamViewer, it was very  refreshing to regain a reliable solution that we can always count on working.

TeamViewer seems very stable. It doesn't just crash or randomly turn itself off in our experience so far.

The central TeamViewer service does have issues from time to time, but the longest we've seen it last is a few hours, and it seems to be mostly in the middle of the night, and they're all over it, including transparently showing the status of all services on the TeamViewer Status website.

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. ;-)

Technical support is excellent; they do a nice job and have high-quality support techs. The times that I've submitted tickets or called in, it's always been somebody who knows what they're talking about, friendly and knowledgeable. They can't make up for some of the flaws in the product, but they do the best they can with the product that they have, trying workarounds and even testing things in their lab while we're on the phone with them.  It's a pretty impressive support group.

We came to TeamViewer from LogMeIn and, before that, we had an older product called Timbuktu. 

LogMeIn's main issue that caused us to switch was that the Hosts would just randomly turn themselves off:  the icon would grey out and the LogMeIn Control Panel would show that the Host was off.  This of course disabled access to Hosts in a random and widespread manner, and troubleshooting with LogMeIn Support over the period of a year resulted in no fixes or workarounds, and it was causing enormous problems in our environment.

LogMeIn also did not allow multiple controllers on a Host, had no file-transfer capabilities (in the affordable "LogMeIn Central" version that we licensed), was licensed based on the number of devices, and had annoyances with Control/Command-Tab mapping from Controller to Host.  These weren't showstoppers, but they helped to push us elsewhere.

TeamViewer deployment is fairly straightforward:  knowledgeable techs can configure Host settings, brand the Host, and mass-deploy it pretty easily. Manual setup on individual Hosts is very clunky and time-consuming compared to LogMeIn, however.

We deployed it very quickly. We had not made a final decision on LogMeIn until very close to when our LogMeIn's licenses were expiring. So very quickly, within a couple of days, they were able to push out the TeamViewer Host to all of our devices.

Initial setup and ongoing management of Groups and other central management tasks is messy, time-consuming, inelegant and makes no sense.  TeamViewer needs to take a hard look at their hodgepodge and take a good long peek at how LogMeIn Central works and....be more like LogMeIn in central management.

We evaluated and deployed completely in-house.

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.

TeamViewer pricing is reasonable. 

It's licensed by simultaneous controlling tech, rather than by the device. I like that because previously it was always a struggle to keep the device list maintained. If we got rid of a device and we didn't remove LogMeIn properly, the device would remain in our LogMeIn Central account and use a license.

That's not a problem with TeamViewer's licensing, plus you can have as many techs as you want, but it monitors their simultaneous remote control usage with Hosts.  It can be a little tricky in the sense that you have to plan for the maximum simultaneous usage during busy times, and initially I didn't purchase enough licenses, but when we started hitting the limit, TeamViewer detected that and sent emails notifying us, then our sales rep very quickly added another license (allowing us to pay later via purchase order) to get us back in business.

In our environment, TeamViewer turns out to be less expensive than LogMeIn, at least so far.  We’re currently saving about 30 percent on licensing costs, and we don’t have to worry about maintaining/pruning the list of machines in the LogMeIn. TeamViewer's automatic emails telling us that we've hit the simultaneous limit includes stats on how many times it has happened recently, which helps in deciding whether to purchase an additional license.

This type of licensing does have a downside:  with LogMeIn, my staff were accused to controlling a client or a server and staying connected as needed, sometimes for hours if they were doing maintenance on a server or assisting a user with an intermittent issue.  But with TeamViewer, that chews up a simultaneous-use license and drives additional licensing costs, so we all have to remember to disconnect from Hosts.

We tested a number of other remote control solutions hoping for one that would stand out, because of the problems we had seen during our testing with TeamViewer on macOS. Unfortunately, they were all actually worse than TeamViewer.

In the end, before moving to TeamViewer, we evaluated LogMeIn, ConnectWise Control, Royal TSX, Devolutions, Dameware Remote, Goverlan Reach, and Radmin.

Make sure that you're okay with the simultaneous tech licensing. In my environment that works out great but I'm not sure if that's appropriate for all environments. And, if you have macOS Hosts, just understand what you're getting into and carefully map out how you're going to give granular control for Hosts if you have techs that need to control the same Host from different departments/groups.

In terms of how many end-users we can support with one tech,TeamViewer is about the same as LogMeIn. TeamViewer did increase efficiency in multiple ways, but at the cost of some significant management headaches because of the multiple issues mentioned above.  So it may be pretty much a wash, at least until they fix some of the issues.

The most valuable feature of TeamViewer Tensor is the remote access.

The solution could include more AI (Artificial Intelligence).

I have been using TeamViewer Tensor for four to five years.

I rate TeamViewer Tensor a nine out of ten for stability.

TeamViewer Tensor is a highly scalable solution. Most of our clients for TeamViewer Tensor are enterprise businesses.

I rate TeamViewer Tensor ten out of ten for scalability.

I rate TeamViewer Tensor a nine out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution’s deployment took a few minutes.

I am working with the latest version of TeamViewer Tensor. I would recommend TeamViewer Tensor to other users.

Overall, I rate TeamViewer Tensor a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature has been the ability to give control to others for support purposes.

This solution could be improved by offering more flexibility in terms of usage.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution.

We have received good support from the customer service team although at times we have waited a long time in the queue. 

Neutral

The initial setup is simple and straightforward.

We use a paid version. The free version has some limitations and you're not able to make voice calls.

Not every solution is 100% and there's always room for improvement. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

The technical support team assists with TeamViewer and performs repairs and installations remotely.

I like that it is simple to set up.

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.

I would like to see the addition of mini storage. What I do in one session should be in the records so that I can recall it. It would be nice to see the last 10 sessions. That is, I would like to see a chat board.

I've been using this solution for about six years. I use the desktop version.

TeamViewer is stable.

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

The initial setup is simple.

I would rate this solution at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We primarily use the solution for remote access.

I used it mostly for Cisco remote support activities.

It’s so great for when you need to provide remote support. It allows us to troubleshoot in real-time.

The configuration and structure are good.

It doesn’t break down easily.

The product installs easily.

It is stable and can scale well.

The dashboards they have are good.

The solution isn’t expensive at all.

I don’t see any areas where improvement is needed. It’s been helpful overall.

I’ve been using the solution for two or three years.

It’s a stable product. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash on me.

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.

We’ve never really contacted technical support. I can’t really speak to how helpful they are as I don’t have much experience with them.

The solution offers a very easy initial setup. It’s not complex at all.

The licensing on offer is reasonable.

I would recommend the solution to others. I’ve used it a lot and found it to be helpful.

I’d rate it eight out of ten.

This is a remote access tool. Usually, we just use it for our support team, to help them support our customers.

The interface is good, and it is easy to use.

The document control is quite good.

It’s easy to implement.

The product is scalable and very stable.

Sometimes it lags. They need to optimize it a bit. AnyDesk, for example, works faster.

We’ve been using the solution for five years.

The solution has worked flawlessly. It’s stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches.

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.

We have not really used technical support. We haven’t come to a point where we have needed to seek help from TeamViewer.

We tried the other remote access tools like AnyDesk. We switched due to a management decision. We looked at enterprise options and user manageability. We wanted to monitor our licenses and also the usage we have. AnyDesk worked fast. However, sometimes the video quality is bad.

The initial setup is very straightforward. The instructions related to the implementation are straightforward.

The installation itself is also fast. It only takes two to three minutes.

We handled it ourselves. We didn’t need any help from anyone outside. We didn’t use integrators or consultants.

I don’t have any visibility in terms of licensing costs.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using TeamViewer to support our users. It is used for technical support.

TeamViewer has a good interface.

I have been using TeamViewer for approximately three years.

The stability of TeamViewer is good, but it could be better.

TeamViewer is scalable.

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

I used technical support when purchasing the solution and they were fine.

We used Anydesk in parallel with TeamViewer.

The initial setup of TeamViewer was straightforward. It only takes approximately five minutes to complete.

We have a permanent license and the price is reasonable. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate TeamViewer an eight out of ten.