Flowdock vs. MangoApps

Flowdock is well suited for small teams and to environments that doesn't need too much reliability. I think it has some management problems that can make your life difficult if you have to manage a big amount of users. If you want just a tool communication with basic features (without using any integration or robust features) it can be suitable for you. You should try Flowdock using its free version for a small team and compare with others similar products. Flowdock delivers team chat and collaboration features, but is not necessarily the best product. Maybe some usability problems that disturb me won't be so relevant to you.

Incentivized

The ability to create optional interest groups for users to join if they like is a great way brings users together, and promote group meet ups and events. The polls ability is always great for taking a quick check of people's availability, we've used it to gauge interest in events and dates. One thing that could be improved is that there is both a messaging and an instant message functionality which seems a little redundant having users being able to message you from different places in separate inboxes, however this may be due to our set up.

Incentivized

• Mobile app experience
• Software integrations
• Notifications

• MangoApps provide a large number of options to interact within a community. People can post updates, ask questions, create polls, quizzes, wiki, surveys, chats, or forms.
• The Web interface is a modern application (Facebook inspired). The navigation (although not the most efficient) is overall quite intuitive.
• MangoApps has a web interface, and apps for desktop (Windows, Mac), and mobile.
• MangoApps features a centralized notification system. Unread messages are notified from the Web app, the mobile, or the desktop app. The synchronization status is synchronized.
• MangoApps integrates with Active Directory.

Incentivized

• One thing a little bit annoying is that a lot of links to others Flowdock sections (preferences, external services, etc) will open a new window/tab. Each click may take you to a new window and you can get lost easily.
• There isn't a quick access list to members of your organization to start a private chat. I took a while to find how to do that. The interface and usability could be better.
• There isn't an app for Windows Phone.
• Sometimes you try to load some conversation and it doesn't show anything. It is not frequently but happens sometimes.

Incentivized

• The messaging system is quite new and doesn't always clear down when read
• The mentions tab can get very busy if you're added to groups
• Lots of customisation can make it overwhelming when editing

Incentivized

I go with the flow because I'm a newer employee and Flowdock works as advertised. If it were my decision to choose a team communciator for the organization, I'd recommend we go with Slack for its robust features and ever-changing/evolving software integrations. Slack is the outright innovator in the space and will continue to hold that role for some time.

Slack is a similar software.

Private chat or channels are well implemented in both softwares and both are also very easy to setup.

Besides of some usability problemas I think Flowdock is still better than Slack in this user experience and design.

The second point is the price. Flowdock is half price of Slack ($3/month). If you are a student or a non-profit organization, you are able to get some special license.

Incentivized

Although, Facebook at Work featured a very modern interface and was praised by many of the beta testers, we primarily didn't choose Facebook at Work due to data security reasons.

Incentivized

• Our company uses it by default.
• I enjoy the ability to communicate outside of text messages...keeps the conversation on in it's own bucket.

• Users can connect from all over the business, especially useful when working from home
• A friendly informal communication method outside of teams/slack/emails
• A way to communicate events to the whole business

Incentivized