Coda, from Coda Project headquartered in San Francisco, is a template-based document generation solution, supporting a variety of use cases presented by the vendor as ideal for smaller companies that might otherwise be relying on spreadsheets to maintain (for instance) product development, or inventory tracking. It is available free, with paid editions to support teams, automations, or for more advanced collaboration and workspace features, as well as more advanced security features.
$0
per month
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Score 7.4 out of 10
N/A
Skype for Business was an online messaging and conferencing tool, now superseded by Microsoft Teams.
N/A
Pricing
Coda
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Editions & Modules
Free
$0.00
per month
Pro
$10.00
per month per doc maker; unlimited editors (paid annually)
Team
$30.00
per month per doc maker; unlimited editors (paid annually)
Enterprise
Custom Pricing
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Coda
Skype for Business, now part of Microsoft Teams
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
With Coda, you only pay for Doc Makers.
Often one person creates a doc, others edit it, and some simply observe from afar. Instead of charging for everyone, we only charge for the people who create docs.
Interested in enterprise pricing? Visit coda.io/enterprise
My organization considers Coda for a variety of business and organizational projects. Using Coda, my organization keeps a lot of data and different types of data in one place. The user interface of Coda is very fluid and easy to use. My organization has benefitted from using the efficient and effective operational functionality of Coda.
Skype is useful for collaborations across distances, including work from home, as well as a more convenient way to communicate with a large group of people. Skype is also useful to communicate with specific parties quickly, rather than relying on cellular service in areas where not as available. Skype is less useful if the team does not use computers , tablets, smartphones, etc in daily workflow as it would rarely be used.
Instant messaging to anyone who we know only by name/email. Even if they're offline, they get the message in missed convos and a notification automatically goes to them via Outlook mail. All conversations are saved and accessible via Outlook.
Video and voice calls are a norm in the WFH scenario, and an average employee has around 4-5 calls a day. Skype gives notifications for upcoming meetings, allows easy scheduling via outlook calendar, and its audio/video quality [is] reasonably good compared to the amount of data it consumes.
Status availabilities - in the WFH scenario, you could be off for lunch, out of office, busy, sharing screens - and might not want to be disturbed. Skype allows you to do that, and in case you're off, ensures that you know that you have missed messages.
Screen sharing - we have to share screens at least once or twice a day with a coworker when working on some issues/features, and Skype easily lets us do that. One of the best things about Skype is that the screen can be shared without being on a video/voice call - which is of immense advantage because oftentimes, you could prefer sharing the screen, while it [is] too noisy to talk.
It takes getting used to in terms of how the formulas per column is implemented, in contrast to how we build tables in Excel. For organization/team purchase, it would be worth considering having a training for the core team of users. Right now, we do a lot of self-learning.
Inability to email charts or image without these objects being hosted on a third party. The community has been great in providing workarounds but it would be much more convenient to be able to have such ability natively.
APAC Support. I'm based in Malaysia, due to timezone differences, even with a livechat implemented, the support for each step and conversation takes up to 24 hours per response. Having some hours covered in our timezone would greatly improve customer support experience.
Probably the biggest area is the video element as it has historically struggled in this area.
The need to be forced to federate with another organisation by providing yours and enabling the other organisation settings is a bit tedious but once done, allows for simple collaboration between third-parties.
Functionality wise, as it's an older product and being superseded by MS Teams, it feels as if it's run its course but was very good for what it does/did at the time.
Coda is definitely something that has been proven to drive positive impact in our organization. We have many divisions that can benefit from this that we have yet to explore. It would definitely be worth renewing.
The software is simple to install and configure. It is rather simple to explain for correct use. It is possible to profile users for the different functions offered. It is integrated quite completely with Outlook and with Active Directory security. It performs all communication functions well with one or more interlocutors and the possibility of granting control of your computer is convenient.
Coda can seem either really useful or really useless. The extremes of both ends is driven by what our own understanding of what we want to implement. If we lack this understanding, it will be easy to misunderstand Coda's usability especially in the wrong context.
Very easy to use. Even though Microsoft Teams has a lot of features and integrations, as a user I feel completely comfortable on finding what I need, getting information about the app extensions and using them. It's a very comprehensive tool, intuitive design and does not make me feel tired to be using it. I am glad with the current experience.
We haven't done any integrations - the initial part of our experience we found that for docs with complex formulas, the page tends to load slowly but in recent months, Coda has improved and optimized the loading times in general and we generally don't find any problems in terms of speed anymore.
Mainly due to timezone differences. I think Coda's support in general is well implemented and executed. They know their stuff and are helpful. But since I'm not in the same timezone, solution rates are slower for me, and that's not something I prefer. I work in customer service, too, and more often than not, time is important. Shortening the solution time would be a much greater experience.
I have only had to reach out to the Support team at Skype for Business once with an issue, and I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the quickness and thoroughness of their response. The wait time was short and my question was dealt with politely and clearly, so I would say the support team has it together.
I'm relatively inexperienced but this experience is meaningful. It would have been nice to have some guidance from Coda so that we understood more on Coda's purpose and potential.
Skpe for business is utilized company wide in regards to my company. Everyone not only uses it, but uses it often. It is an effective way of communicating. It also integrates very nicely with outlook and all conversation history is pushed to a folder within the outlook system. We also have it so that if someone misses a message, they are sent an email reminder saying that there is a message that went unread.
While all of the products listed have great features and platforms, there was always one thing missing from them that I would need to get from another application. Coda was the first one we used that really combined some of the best parts of those products and allowed us to use it in one place. I also appreciate the flexibility of creating your own framework and workflow, unlike in other tools where you have to follow how they capture data and organize projects.
For the below reason I will always choose this app over its competitors: Better audio and video quality, Little to no disconnections or freezing when on a call/video conference Integrates well with mailbox/ calendar/ one drive, and SharePoint is easy to use
I think scalability is definitely good here since it's based on number of doc makers. Implementation into each dept becomes simpler. That being said, due to the nature of our work, we find it easier that we have a "super user" and then a team of other doc makers. This would make the doc creation and management more efficient.
We almost lost our biggest client because of the poor performance early on in our implementation...the online meetings were poor quality for audio and bandwidth refreshing
Many of the employees in our company disliked the quality so much, they started to sign up for free Cisco WebEx accounts to use instead
The majority of employees in our company lost trust in our CTO because of his decision to switch from Cisco WebEx to Skype for Business
