The best Avoma alternatives in 2026 are Gong, Fireflies.ai, Fathom, Otter.ai, tl;dv, Grain, Chorus, Clari Copilot, Attention, Spinach AI and Shogo. Gong leads on revenue intelligence depth, Fireflies.ai on breadth of integrations, Fathom on a genuinely usable free tier, Otter.ai on transcript volume, tl;dv on free meeting recording, Grain on shareable clips, Chorus on call scoring inside ZoomInfo, Clari Copilot on forecasting, Attention on AI-powered coaching, and Shogo when a meeting has to trigger work in your other systems rather than simply summarise itself.
Every platform below was checked against its own live pricing and product pages in September 2026, and the prices are the vendors’ own published figures. Two entries that appear in older versions of this comparison are deliberately absent. MeetRecord now redirects to Outdoo AI and has repositioned as an AI roleplay and training product, and the Versational domain no longer resolves at all. Neither is a usable Avoma alternative today, so neither is listed.
What is Avoma?
Avoma is an AI meeting assistant that covers the meeting lifecycle, from scheduling through transcription, AI notes, conversation intelligence and follow up emails into the CRM. It is built for revenue teams, meaning sales, customer success, product management and recruiting, and its calling card is that it handles the whole sequence rather than one slice of it. It sells on a per user basis with a free tier, and its conversation intelligence features sit in the middle of the market on both price and depth.
Avoma focuses on the workflow rather than on the analysis, which is why teams that want deep coaching usually look at the specialists first. It also handles team collaboration around notes well, and its AI meeting assistant is competent across Google Meet, Microsoft Teams and Zoom, so the capture layer is never the problem.
Teams look for Avoma alternatives for four reasons. The first is price, because call recording and storage across a large sales team adds up quickly. The second is depth of sales coaching, because Avoma summarises well but does less to score calls or build coaching programmes from them. The third is integration, because the meeting assistant has to reach the CRM and the project management tools the team already runs. The fourth is scope, because some teams want meeting intelligence inside a wider automation platform rather than as a standalone tool. Knowing which of those four is your pain point is the fastest way to shorten this list.
How we compared these Avoma alternatives
Each entry below covers the same four things: what the platform is, where it is genuinely strong, where it is weak or a poor fit, and the team it suits. We read each vendor’s own pricing page rather than a review site, because pricing details on third party comparison pages are routinely a year out of date. Where a vendor sells per user per month we say so, and where a free plan exists we say what it actually includes.
What conversation intelligence actually includes
Conversation intelligence is a broad label, and vendors stretch it to cover very different amounts of work. At its narrowest it means call recording with a searchable transcript. At its widest it means a platform that records, transcribes, scores, summarises and then pushes the result into the systems the revenue team lives in. Worth separating the layers before you compare products, because a vendor strong at one is often weak at the next.
Call recording and call scoring
Call recording is the commodity layer, and almost every tool here does it. The recording is the raw material for everything else, so the questions that matter are whether recording is automatic, whether it is stored without a per seat cap, and whether the vendor charges for storage. Call scoring is where products separate. A scoring model that produces a number with no explanation is theatre, while one that ties a score to specific moments in the call gives a sales leader something to coach against. If call scoring is your reason for switching, test it against your own recorded calls before you buy, because the models are tuned differently and a score that disagrees with your judgement will be ignored by the team within a month.
AI meeting notes and AI summaries
Vendors describe this layer in several ways, and the labels are not interchangeable in practice. AI notes usually means the summary attached to one meeting. AI generated summaries and AI generated meeting summaries describe the same output with more words. AI generated call summaries are the version that lands in the CRM. AI powered call summaries go a step further by pulling out the commitments, which is the part a sales team actually needs.
AI meeting notes and AI summaries save the most obvious time, and they are now close to table stakes. The differences that matter are accuracy on your particular vocabulary, whether speaker attribution holds in a room with five people, and how the summary handles a meeting that produced no decision. A summary that invents an action item is worse than no summary, because somebody will act on it. The stronger products let you edit a template so the summary matches the meeting types you actually run, such as a discovery call, a renewal or an internal review.
Sentiment analysis and smart trackers
Sentiment analysis and smart trackers are the features that turn a transcript into a signal. Trackers watch for the topics you care about, such as a competitor mentioned by name or a pricing objection, and flag every call where they appear. Team collaboration features such as commenting on a moment in a call are what turn a flagged call into a coaching conversation. Sentiment gives a rough read on how the conversation went. Neither is precise enough to run a business on, and both are useful as filters: they tell you which of two hundred calls are worth listening to, which is the actual problem at scale.
Essential features to compare in a meeting assistant
Once the layers above are clear, the comparison narrows to a short list of capability questions. These are the ones that decide whether a tool survives its first quarter.
Deal insights and pipeline visibility. The meeting data should inform the forecast rather than sit beside it. Platforms that push deal intelligence into the CRM give sales leaders pipeline visibility they did not have to assemble by hand, and that flow is what separates a reporting tool from a forecasting one.
Coaching workflow. AI generated notes are only the start of sales coaching, and most platforms stop there. Look for the ability to build a scorecard, attach it to a set of calls, and track whether the behaviour changed. Advanced conversation analytics that nobody reviews are an expensive dashboard.
Integrations. At minimum the tool needs Google Meet, Microsoft Teams and Zoom for capture, plus your CRM and the project management tools your team uses. A meeting assistant that cannot reach the CRM turns every follow up into manual data entry, and sales tools that stay disconnected from the recording are the most common reason a rollout is quietly abandoned.
Basic features against advanced features. Automatic recording, a transcript and a summary are the basic meeting assistant features, and they are now common enough to decide very little. The advanced features decide the purchase: call scoring, smart trackers, shared meeting templates and the ability to write into the CRM. Where a platform offers shared meeting templates we say so, because a team that runs the same three meeting types every week saves real time when the template belongs to them rather than to the vendor.
Security and admin. Enterprise grade security, an audit trail, retention controls and the ability to exclude certain meeting types are the features that get a tool approved by legal. They are rarely the reason a team buys, and they are frequently the reason a deployment stalls.
Why the conversation intelligence space is crowded
The conversation intelligence space has more vendors than the demand justifies, which is why it consolidates every couple of years. Large sales organizations get acquired or rebranded, and buyers find out late. MeetRecord is the clearest example in this list, since it now trades as Outdoo AI in a different category entirely. Enterprise teams with a slow procurement cycle are the most exposed to this, because a tool approved eighteen months ago may no longer exist under that name by the time it is deployed.
Who these Avoma alternatives are for
Sales reps and customer success managers want different things, and the mismatch is why deployments stall. A sales rep wants one sales call summarised and the follow up written. A customer success manager wants customer conversations searchable across an account’s history, because the useful signal is rarely inside a single meeting. Support teams want customer calls transcribed and customer feedback routed, where the value is volume rather than depth.
Revenue teams that record customer interactions usually need three things from one platform: summaries they trust, a way to find the calls that went badly, and a handoff into the CRM so that customer relationships are not rebuilt by hand. Teams focused on sales performance want something else again, which is coaching insights attached to specific moments, plus a coaching strategy their managers will follow after the launch enthusiasm fades. Ask whether the same user can be excluded from recording, because the answer decides whether your legal team signs off.
The pain points that drive a switch are consistent across all of them, and they are worth naming because vendors address them unevenly. Customer interactions that end in a decision are the ones worth recording, and a tool that captures them badly will not be used. Those pain points differ by team size, and the first of them is cost, since storage grows faster than usage. The second is that summaries are readable but not reliable. The third is that sales outcomes stop improving because nobody acts on what the recordings show. A tool that fixes the first two but not the third has moved the problem rather than solved it.
The 11 best Avoma alternatives for 2026
1. Gong
What it is: A revenue intelligence platform built on recorded sales conversations. Gong captures calls, scores them, and turns the corpus into forecasts, deal intelligence and coaching material for sales teams.
Strengths: The deepest conversation intelligence platform on this list, particularly for forecasting and deal inspection. Call scoring is tied to evidence in the transcript rather than delivered as a bare number, which sales leaders can actually coach against. Pipeline visibility improves because the deal record is informed by what was said on the call. Strong CRM sync and a mature analytics layer, and the clearest fit for sales teams that treat conversation data as forecast input rather than as coaching material.
Weaknesses: Enterprise pricing with no meaningful free tier, and the licence model means the value depends on how many of your team are on calls. Setup takes longer than the lighter tools here, and a small sales organisations will pay for forecasting depth it does not yet use. A free tier does not exist, so there is no way to trial it properly without a sales conversation.
Best for: Sales organisations with a dedicated enablement function and enough call volume to make forecasting worthwhile.
2. Fireflies.ai
What it is: An AI meeting assistant that records, transcribes and summarises meetings across Google Meet, Microsoft Teams and Zoom, then makes the output searchable alongside the systems your team already uses.
Strengths: The widest integration set here, which is why it shows up in so many sales teams. The free tier includes storage as well as recording, which is more generous than most. Paid plans start at $10/user/month for the entry tier, $18/user/month for Pro, $29/user/month for Business and $39/user/month for Enterprise. Search across the whole corpus is fast, and the AI powered notes are dependable.
Weaknesses: Summary quality is good rather than best in class, and the coaching layer is thinner than Gong or Chorus. The interface carries a lot of surface area, and teams that only want AI summaries will find the configuration overhead unnecessary.
Best for: Sales teams that want one AI meeting assistant covering every platform and are happy to configure it.
3. Fathom
What it is: A meeting assistant with a free plan that records, transcribes and summarises calls, with templates for different meeting types and CRM sync included.
Strengths: The strongest free offering of any tool here, and the paid tier is the cheapest credible option. Pricing is $15/user/month at the entry paid tier, $19/user/month for Premium, $25/user/month for Team and $34/user/month for Team Edition Pro. Customisable summary templates and clip sharing are genuinely useful, and the product is quick to learn.
Weaknesses: Shallower analytics than the revenue intelligence platforms, with limited call scoring and no serious pipeline visibility story. Suited to individual contributors more than to a sales leader who needs portfolio level reporting.
Best for: Small teams and individuals who want dependable AI notes without a contract.
4. Otter.ai
What it is: A transcription-first meeting assistant that captures meetings, produces a searchable transcript, and generates AI summaries and action items.
Strengths: Transcription is the product rather than a feature, and the volume allowances are the most generous in the category. Free tier covers a useful amount of monthly transcription, and paid plans run from around $13.59/user/month through $16/user/month, $19/user/month, $24/user/month and $30/user/month depending on tier and billing. Good search across historical transcripts, though it is a customer success and admin tool as much as a sales one.
Weaknesses: Weaker on sales specific depth. Deal insights, call scoring and coaching workflow are not the point of the product, so a revenue team will outgrow it. Speaker attribution in noisy rooms is less reliable than the sales focused tools.
Best for: Teams that mainly need transcripts and meeting notes, and functions outside sales.
5. tl;dv
What it is: A meeting notetaker for Zoom, Google Meet and Microsoft Teams, built around recording meetings and turning them into shareable summaries and clips.
Strengths: A free tier that covers unlimited meeting recording with AI summaries, which makes it the lowest friction way to test whether an AI meeting assistant fits your workflow at all. Sales teams evaluating on cost should start here. Clips and timestamped highlights share well, and the product is deliberately simple.
Weaknesses: Lighter on conversation intelligence and revenue intelligence than the specialists. Search and analytics across a large corpus are basic, and there is limited call scoring. The pricing page has moved since older comparisons were written, so confirm current paid plans on their site.
Best for: Sales teams starting out with AI notes who want to prove the value before spending.
6. Grain
What it is: A meeting intelligence platform focused on capturing calls and turning moments from them into shareable clips, with summaries and CRM sync.
Strengths: The best clip workflow here, which matters for sales coaching because a two minute clip of a strong objection handler travels further than a written summary. The free tier covers the basics, and paid plans start at $19/user/month. Clean interface and fast highlight creation.
Weaknesses: Meeting intelligence at portfolio level is thinner than Gong or Clari Copilot. Fewer conversation intelligence features overall, and less suited to a large team wanting aggregate reporting.
Best for: Sales teams that coach by example and want clips rather than reports.
7. Chorus by ZoomInfo
What it is: A revenue intelligence platform and conversation intelligence product inside the ZoomInfo suite, recording and scoring sales conversations, with the results feeding ZoomInfo’s data and workflow tools.
Strengths: Strong call scoring and sales coaching workflow, and the tightest link between conversation data and contact data of any tool here. Deal insights benefit from ZoomInfo’s account information, which competitors have to buy separately. Good coverage of Microsoft Teams and Zoom capture.
Weaknesses: Its value depends heavily on already running ZoomInfo, and as a standalone purchase it is hard to justify. Pricing is quote based rather than published, so budgeting is harder. The suite model means buying features you may not need.
Best for: Revenue teams already standardised on ZoomInfo.
8. Clari Copilot
What it is: A conversation intelligence tool that sits alongside Clari’s forecasting platform, recording and analysing sales conversations and feeding the results into the forecast.
Strengths: The strongest forecasting connection here, because conversation evidence flows into the revenue model rather than sitting beside it. Deal intelligence is genuinely useful for pipeline reviews, and call summaries are accurate. Campaign tracking across multiple meetings works well.
Weaknesses: The full value requires Clari’s forecasting product, which puts a floor under both cost and commitment. Pricing is not published. Overkill for a team that only wants AI notes.
Best for: Revenue teams running a formal forecasting process.
9. Attention
What it is: An AI powered coaching platform that learns from your best sales conversations and turns them into feedback, scorecards and training for the rest of the sales teams running them.
Strengths: The most focused sales coaching product on this list. Call scoring is built around coaching rather than reporting, and the AI driven coaching feedback is specific enough to act on. AI powered insights are framed as next actions rather than as dashboards. Good fit for teams that have recording in place and want the coaching layer on top.
Weaknesses: Not a general purpose meeting assistant, so it does not replace Avoma for AI notes or scheduling. Pricing is quote based, and the product assumes a functioning enablement process rather than creating one. Limited value for small teams.
Best for: Sales leaders with a coaching programme already running and a need to scale it.
10. Spinach AI
What it is: An AI meeting assistant that joins calls, produces AI generated notes and action items, and pushes them into the tools a product or engineering team runs.
Strengths: Strong on follow through rather than analysis, with action items and decisions captured and routed to Slack, Linear and similar tools. A free tier makes it easy to trial, and the summaries are clean. Works well for recurring team meetings rather than sales calls.
Weaknesses: Not built for revenue teams, so revenue intelligence, deal intelligence and call scoring are absent. Reporting is light, and there is little aggregate analytics across a quarter of meetings.
Best for: Product and engineering teams wanting meeting decisions to end up in the right tool.
11. Shogo
What it is: An AI agent platform that handles meetings as one input among many. Shogo records and summarises calls with speaker tagged transcription and multi meeting intelligence, then uses the meeting as a trigger for work in the systems your company already runs, rather than treating the summary as the end of the process.
Strengths: The meeting is connected to action. Shogo’s automator reaches more than 200 tools, so an action item from a call can open a ticket or update a record without a person moving it.
Weaknesses: Shogo is not a dedicated conversation intelligence platform and does not try to be. Its call scoring and sales coaching features are less developed than Gong or Attention, so a team whose only goal is coaching should buy one of those instead. Revenue intelligence reporting is thinner than Clari Copilot or Gong. There is no free entry point, unlike Fathom, tl;dv and Otter, so a trial has to go through a sales conversation. The setup for on premises deployment needs engineering time, and the platform is broader than the meeting problem, which means a small team adopting it for notes alone is buying far more product than it needs. Teams that want a narrow notetaker will find the surface area heavy, and the value only appears once the workflow automation is in use.
Best for: Teams that already run automations and want their meetings to trigger them, particularly in organisations with data residency requirements.
Avoma alternatives pricing compared
| Platform | Free tier | Entry paid tier | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gong | No | Quote-based | Enterprise licensing per seat |
| Fireflies.ai | Yes | $10/user/month | Tiers at $18/user/month, $29/user/month and $39/user/month |
| Fathom | Yes | $15/user/month | Tiers at $19/user/month, $25/user/month and $34/user/month |
| Otter.ai | Yes | About $13.59/user/month | Tiers up to $30/user/month |
| tl;dv | Yes | See vendor site | Free plan covers recording and summaries |
| Grain | Yes | $19/user/month | Single published paid tier |
| Chorus | No | Quote-based | Bundled with ZoomInfo |
| Clari Copilot | No | Quote-based | Bundled with Clari forecasting |
| Attention | No | Quote-based | Coaching-focused, per seat |
| Spinach AI | Yes | See vendor site | Free tier for small teams |
| Shogo | No | Quote-based | Paid plans scale by deployment |
Six of the eleven offer a free entry point, which tells you most of the market expects you to trial before you buy. Where paid plans start at a published figure, the figure is quoted per user month and usually billed annually, so the annual commitment is the real number to compare. Pricing details move, and quote based vendors change packaging more often than published price vendors, so treat this table as a starting point and confirm on the vendor’s site before you budget.
Free plan versus paid plans in this category
A free tier is worth having if it includes recording rather than only a transcript, and if it does not cap storage so low that the trial ends before it becomes useful. Fireflies.ai, Fathom, tl;dv, Grain, Otter.ai and Spinach AI all offer some version of a free entry point, and they differ mainly in what the free plan excludes. The pattern to watch is that free plans are generous on capture and restrictive on analytics, because capture is cheap to provide and reporting is where the paid plans earn.
A business plan tier is where integrations and admin controls usually appear, and the enterprise plan is where security review, retention policy and single sign on live. The jump between a business plan and an enterprise plan is often wider than the jump from the entry tier, which is why quote based vendors size their deals on deployment rather than on seats.
Paid plans split into two models. Published per user month pricing makes budgeting simple, and it is the model the lighter tools use. Quote based pricing, which Gong, Chorus, Clari Copilot, Attention and Shogo all use, usually means the vendor expects a larger deployment and wants to size the deal. Neither model is dishonest, but a quote based vendor is harder to evaluate quickly, and the practical advice is to ask two questions early: what the annual commitment is, and what happens to the price if headcount halves.
How the alternatives fit into a sales stack
None of these tools replaces the others entirely, and most sales teams end up running two. A recording and summarisation layer captures everything, and a coaching or intelligence layer does something with it. Avoma tries to cover both, which is why it wins on simplicity and loses to specialists on depth.
When teams look for Avoma alternatives they usually want one of three things: a cheaper way to get AI meeting notes, a deeper conversation intelligence platform for coaching and forecasting, or a meeting assistant that connects to automation so that a call produces action rather than a document. Gong, Chorus, Clari Copilot and Attention answer the second need. Fathom, tl;dv, Grain and Otter.ai answer the first. Shogo answers the third.
Choosing between them
Work backwards from the decision your sales teams cannot make today. If you cannot tell which deals are at risk, you need deal intelligence and pipeline visibility, which points to Gong, Chorus or Clari Copilot. If your managers cannot coach at scale, you need call scoring and a coaching workflow, which points to Attention or Gong. If your team simply loses time writing up calls, any of the summarisation tools will fix it for a fraction of the cost. If your problem is that meeting outcomes never reach the systems where the work happens, none of the pure notetakers will fix that, and an automation layer is the answer.
Common mistakes when switching meeting assistants
The most common mistake is buying for the recording rather than the output. Every tool here records, so recording is not a differentiator, and teams that switch for recording alone end up with the same problem at a lower price.
The second is ignoring storage limits, which is how a cheap per user month price becomes expensive once the team records everything.
The third is choosing a tool your CRM does not support. A meeting assistant that cannot write into the CRM creates manual data entry, which is the work you were trying to remove.
The fourth is skipping legal. Recording laws vary by jurisdiction, and a platform with no retention controls or no on premises option will be blocked after the pilot rather than before it.
The fifth is rolling out to everyone at once. Start with one team, measure whether the summaries are accurate enough to trust, and expand once they are.
FAQ
What is the best free Avoma alternative?
Fathom has the strongest free plan for most teams, because it includes recording, transcription, AI summaries and CRM sync rather than transcript only. Fathom, tl;dv, Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai and Grain all offer a free entry point, and the right choice depends on whether you need summaries, clips or raw transcript volume.
Is Avoma still a good meeting assistant in 2026?
Yes. Avoma remains one of the few platforms covering scheduling through to follow up emails in one product, and it is strongest for teams that value a single tool over best in class depth in any one layer.
Which Avoma alternative is best for sales coaching?
Attention, Gong and Chorus are the three to shortlist. Attention is the most coaching specific, Gong has the deepest evidence base, and Chorus is the strongest option if you already run ZoomInfo. Avoma’s own coaching features are adequate rather than advanced.
Do I need conversation intelligence or just meeting notes?
If your managers listen to calls anyway and only want the write up done, you need meeting notes. If they cannot get through the volume of calls to coach, you need conversation intelligence, because the value comes from filtering hundreds of conversations down to the ones that matter.
What happened to MeetRecord and Versational?
MeetRecord now redirects to Outdoo AI and positions itself as an AI roleplay and training platform rather than a conversation intelligence tool, so it competes in a different category. The Versational domain no longer resolves. Both are removed from this comparison rather than listed with stale descriptions.
Can any of these run on premises?
Shogo is the one on this list that offers an on premises deployment, which matters for regulated industries where meeting recordings cannot leave the company network. Most conversation intelligence tools are cloud only.
How much do paid plans usually cost?
Where vendors publish pricing, entry tiers sit between roughly $10/user/month and $19/user/month, with advanced tiers between $19/user/month and $39/user/month. Gong, Chorus, Clari Copilot, Attention and Shogo price by quote instead, and their entry points are materially higher.
Sources
- Avoma
- Gong
- Fireflies.ai
- Fathom
- Otter.ai
- tl;dv
- Grain
- Chorus by ZoomInfo
- Clari Copilot
- Attention
- Spinach AI
- Shogo
Prices are the vendors’ own published figures as of September 2026 and are quoted per user per month unless stated otherwise. Verify current pricing with each vendor before budgeting.
