Microsoft Teams Rooms vs. RingCentral Video

We use Microsoft Teams Rooms across all of our main conference suites. This ensure our staff have consistent meeting experiences in out part of the education sector - meetings generally become hybrid fairly frequently and can even extend to pupils or staff working from home. We did try some of the poly equipment in a classroom environment but due to noise levels and the amount of pupils and staff it quickly became a non starter. We were advised to stick with participant numbers aligned to our purchased hardware before we tried this.

Incentivized

I would recommend RingCentral Video if a user or company is currently using RingCentral Meetings and is concerned with the security implications of using a Zoom-based platform. I would also recommend it if they are using O365 or G Suite presently. I would not recommend RingCentral Video if they are using MS Exchange on-prem. RingCentral Video is not as good as RingCentral Meetings, at present. It's also not as good as other meeting software, such as Cisco Webex.

• Video and audio recording.
• Sharing content.
• Stable connection.
• Webinar features.

Incentivized

• Audio quality is always good if we have good internet.
• Sharing the screen is easy and simple for every user.
• Reliability, as all the conference software we need to make sure it's there whenever we need it.

Incentivized

• We would like to see a view which focuses on each individual and places them in a separate frame for an immersive experience.
• It should connect to the Teams app in laptop as soon as we enter the room using some medium like mic audio.
• Low bandwidth consumption codec to be developed to allow good quality video conferencing even in low bandwidth networks.

Incentivized

• Only a rudimentary add-in for Outlook if using on-prem Exchange
• Bugs in screen sharing that include an "application was minimized" error and the inability to share audio from a pre-recorded video
• No simple way to join a RingCentral Video from the phone app without typing in the exact meeting ID, which can be tedious.

Hardware dependance: important to have the right certified hardware such as cameras, microphones which can limit flexibility. User onboarding and learning curve of using the product as with any new integration takes time. Therefore, maybe thinking about a more intuitive approach could help on an easier ramp up for 1st time users

Easy to use once it has been set up and onboarded with your company. Once you learn how to use all of the various features and dial out to other countries, it is a great product and in my opinion, superior to some of its competitors on the market currently.

Incentivized

Did not require support

Incentivized

Cisco Webex, Zoom

Incentivized

RingCentral Video works basically as well as Google, Skype, and Zoom, however, those apps are more well known and much more industry standards. That is why we prefer them however we do use RingCentral as the backup and for some clients who prefer it for one reason or another. It is firmly on the second tier of options, but it is solid nonetheless.

Incentivized

• Increase in Staff confidence to use meeting equipment
• less "device failures" during meetings
• More and more staff have reduced the need to travel to each of our sites for a meeting.

Incentivized

• Hard to attach an ROI as RingCentral Video is in current competition throughout our organization with Microsoft Teams. For those who have been using RingCentral Video since we first began using them, they find the product well received by their external clients/customers.