Fathom vs Granola
 Fathom |  Granola | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 57/100 | 73/100 |
| Rank in category | Unranked (under 8 rated comments) | #1 |
| Rated comments | 5 | 33 |
| Best for | Salespeople who want calls recorded and transcribed so they can stop taking notes; Small teams that want a free recorder they can pipe into a CRM or Zapier | People in back-to-back meetings who want notes without a bot joining the call; External or in-person meetings where you don't control the call platform; Users who want to steer notes with their own jottings or prompts and query them later |
| Skip it if | No pattern in user complaints | Teams that need accurate who-said-what attribution in transcripts |
| Starting price | $15/user/mo | $14/user/mo |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | Free plan with unlimited recordings and transcription (some AI features limited). Paid plans are listed per user per month with lower annual prices: Premium $20 or $16 annual; Team $19 or $15 annual (2-user minimum); Business $34 or $25 annual (2-user minimum); Enterprise is sales-led. Paid plans offer a free trial. | Free Basic plan ($0, 30-day meeting history, limited AI chat and integrations). Business is $14/user/mo with unlimited history, API and integrations; Enterprise is $35/user/mo with SSO, SCIM and admin controls. The page does not state monthly vs annual billing. |
Independent discussion is thin: most of the 100 matched comments use "fathom" as an ordinary verb or refer to the unrelated Fathom Analytics, and only 5 non-promotional comments give a first-hand view of the meeting recorder. All five are favourable, citing that it removes note-taking, lets users go back and ask questions about a call, shows talk-time ratio, is quick to move into a CRM, and is usable on the free plan. No independent user here reports a problem, which reflects how little was said rather than evidence that there are none.
Users like
- Removes note-taking on sales calls, and users can go back to a call and ask questions when they forget details[1]
- Transcripts move into the CRM quickly: one rep pastes each call into Salesforce in about 20 seconds[1]
- Shows how much of the call the rep spent talking versus the prospect, which one rep credits with fixing over-talking[1]
- Usable on the free plan: one team pays only for Zapier on top[1]
Independent users, mostly product managers and salespeople, are strongly positive: they like that no bot joins the call, that it frees them to listen instead of typing, and several rate its notes above the built-in Zoom, Teams, Copilot and Gong summaries, with some paying for it themselves. The recurring weakness is attribution and fidelity: users say it is poor at labelling who said what, one sales team calls its transcripts really bad, and one PM found its summaries compress away detail. Promotional comments were a small minority, mostly rival note-takers pitching their own product.
Users like
- No bot joins the meeting: it captures audio on your device, and users also use it for in-person meetings[1][2][3][4][5]
- Users rate its transcripts and notes above built-in options: better than Teams, Copilot, Zoom and Meet notes, and than Gong's AI summaries[1][2][3][4]
- Lets users listen instead of typing during calls; several call it a big time saver and one seller pays the $15 a month out of pocket[1][2][3][4][5]
- Merges the user's own typed notes with the transcript, lets them prompt how notes are reshaped, and answers questions across past meetings[1][2][3][4]