Microsoft Teams combines video conferencing software with team collaboration tools. The communications platform allows MS Office users to conduct conference calls and share files via SharePoint, and join or initiate a group chat.
$4.80
per month per user
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Score 7.6 out of 10
N/A
The Polycom RealPresence Group Series is a video conferencing codec that connects to a standards-based video conferencing infrastructure to allow users to make video conference calls. There are three products in the series – RealPresence Group 300, RealPresence Group 500, and RealPresence Group 700. It is certified to use with Office 365 and Skype for Business.
N/A
Pricing
Microsoft Teams
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Editions & Modules
Microsoft Teams Essentials
$4.80
per month per user
Microsoft Teams Enterprise
$5.25
per month (paid yearly) per user
Microsoft Teams Enterprise
$5.25
per month per user
Microsoft 365 Business Basic
$7.20
per month per user
Microsoft 365 Business Standard
$15
per month per user
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Microsoft Teams
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Discounts are available for non profit organizations.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Microsoft Teams
Polycom RealPresence Group Series
Considered Both Products
Microsoft Teams
Verified User
Professional
Chose Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Teams was the best option for us because of its deep integration with other Microsoft products. It works seamlessly with the Office suite and makes collaboration and workflows with SharePoint and Flow possible in a way that other tools couldn't do or couldn't do as …
We have used Microsoft Teams Rooms in some of our smaller huddle rooms that still require video, and this was due to the lower cost of the Microsoft Teams Room systems over the Polycom Presence Group series. The Microsoft Teams Rooms are perfect for small, less-used rooms, as …
When I started at one of my jobs, they already have Lifesize VC equipment. It was nice, they worked and they were less expensive. But once we started transitioning things to Polycom it was a night/day difference. Some of our large conference rooms had audio issues that the …
Polycom is the most flexible video conferencing hardware solution on the market. They provide a fantastic infrastructure but also have the option to directly register or convert to a cloud service endpoint!
Teams is inferior to other platforms like Slack for messaging or Zoom. If it were up to me, I'd use Zoom for video conferencing as it's better for large groups and online training, and cleaner. Slack would be my preferred tool for chat as it's much easier to create channels, push notifications for teams, and integrations with other tools like Seismic.
If you're always working in the Polycom ecosystem then the Group Series codecs are reliable and the quality of the camera and microphones are extremely good. However, the system relies heavily on either having onsite server technology and/or cloud based bridging capability. In addition, the peripherals like cameras and microphones are quite expensive. Maintenance and support costs also make the ongoing investment a costly one
Microsoft Teams does rely on internet quality, so If you are needing information on found in Teams and your internet is down or choppy, you wont be able to access those files unlike if they were stored directly on your computer or network.
Some of the user interface of Microsoft Teams is not user friendly, it can take a long time to figure out how to use some tool even if you are using the help or troubleshooting.
Some of the Microsoft Teams features are limited to anyone using the free version vs. paid. With the paid, you have more storage, more video time, more tools. It would be nice to see the free version have the same features and ability.
The only issue that we have experienced with Polycom RealPresence Group Series is the speed dial functionality. When attempting to use the speed dial buttons, the system occasionally sends a call through the computer system, not the phone. While the computer call option is valuable, not everyone can answer calls that way and we have had to do a manual lookup of an extension and call back when that happens.
Microsoft Teams is included with our Office 365 subscription and we have no intention of migrating off of Office 365 and Microsoft products. Since Microsoft Teams is included for free with our Office 365 subscription, and since we enjoy all the features, benefits, and functionality, there is no question that our team will continue to use the product
I personally have not come across a comparable platform that does what Microsoft Teams does and I believe there are very few competitors that offer the integration and user-friendly features that Microsoft Teams provides. You don't need to have special training to successfully benefit from Microsoft Teams features. If you can text, you can Microsoft Teams chat. If you can make a phone call, you can make a Microsoft Teams call - I think that in itself grants the platform a 10/10 rating for me.
The directory is slightly dated and unless you have a Skype for Business integration license, dialing users into a call is difficult. The Group Series Remote whilst minimalistic is actually more difficult to use than the previous HDX remote. Having to recharge the battery on the group series remote is both annoying and difficult as if you do not keep on top of it, you will be faced with a situation where the remote is not working and then have to try and find another one. Not ideal if you need to start a video call (assuming auto join has not been enabled in the admin portal).
The overall support provided by Microsoft for Microsoft Teams has been quite good but there is still some room for improvements. Microsoft needs to proactively work on fixing the open bugs in order to provide a seamless experience to the users. But over the service and experience provided by the Microsoft team have been quite satisfactory.
I can't say I've needed support more than a handful of times. One was for trying to connect a Polycom Conference phone and a Real Presence together. After a few months, we came to the conclusion it wasn't possible, that was the only frustrating occurance with support. Any other time if we needed to RMA a device, it was very smooth.
We chose primarily because of the promised integration with the Microsoft Business Suite - which it mostly delivers on. That does give Teams an obvious advantage over competitors. IMHO Teams has a richer, more mature feature set, and the experience is more reliable and stable. Although like any of there there is room for imporvement.
Our Polycom RealPresence Group Series unit replaced a Cisco Room Series that was mounted to a mobile cart. The cart had one smaller display and the speakers\microphone at the cart. This required staff to be very close to the cart to hear and speak during the meeting. No fault of Cisco but the cart was not sufficient for the space. Polycom RealPresence Group Series was less costly when we were planning out the room.
Honestly, this tool is worth every penny. Yes, it's not free and you pay for the quality of services and the license. But the ROI and the benefits are all there. Also, the renewal, negotiation, and contract terms are all very well explained by our Microsoft account manager, and she's a charm.
I used Skype for Business to take calls, hold conferences, and provide remote assistance to users. Microsoft Teams, on the other hand, is superior to Skype for Business in my opinion. My job entails a lot of screen sharing.
Once pexip integrates Polycom/skype this will be a big win for us due to the RPTouch integrating the "one - touch join". This will increase adoption of video greatly.
Before the Group series with peripherals was implemented the cost of a video room was twice what it is today. Massive win.
Due to provisioning and automated firmware the IT involvement has been greatly reduced. No longer is there a need for manual changes to individual endpoints.