Choose Fathom if calls end in a CRM record and you want the cleanest free core product. Choose Otter if the transcript itself is the deliverable: research interviews, documentation, anything you will search back through later.
Both tools join your calls, transcribe them and hand back a summary with action items. The difference is what they optimise for: Otter treats the transcript as the product, Fathom treats the post-call summary and the CRM record as the product.
That distinction decides the answer more reliably than any feature list, because it determines what you still have twelve months later.
At a glance
| Criterion |  Otter.ai |  Fathom |
|---|---|---|
| Used mainly for | Meeting transcription, action items | Meeting notes, CRM sync |
| Entry price | $16.99/mo · Pro | $20.00/mo · Premium |
| Free plan | ✓Yes | ✓Yes |
| Free trial | ✕No | ✓Yes |
| Works on | Web, iOS, Android | Web, macOS |
| Documented integrations | Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Salesforce | HubSpot, Salesforce, Slack |
| Setup | Easy: minutes | Easy: minutes |
| Main limitation | Accuracy drops in noisy audio | Fewer languages than some rivals |
| Our evidence level | Vendor documented | Vendor documented |
| Try it | Try Otter.ai ↗ | Try Fathom ↗ |
Every cell comes from the tool's record, built from its official documentation and pricing page. The integrations listed are the ones the vendor documents, not tested by us.
Where Fathom pulls ahead
Fathom's free tier covers the core product rather than a trial slice of it, which makes it unusually easy to adopt on a solo basis. Its CRM integrations are the cleaner of the two in practice, and guests do not need to install anything to join a recorded call: a real advantage when you are on client calls rather than internal ones.
Where Otter pulls ahead
Otter is the stronger choice when the transcript matters as much as the summary. It captures automatically across the major meeting platforms, extracts action items reliably, and its free tier includes a monthly transcription allowance that suits a consultant with a handful of calls a week.
The limitations each one carries
Otter's accuracy degrades in noisy audio, its free minutes cap arrives quickly at professional volume, and several of its stronger features sit behind the paid tier. Fathom supports fewer languages than some rivals, puts advanced capability on paid plans, and is not built to be a long-term structured transcription archive.
How the free tiers actually differ
Both offer a permanent free plan rather than a trial, which is unusual in this category and makes a genuine side-by-side test cheap. Run the same week of calls through both. The tool whose output you edit less is the one to keep: that difference is larger than any pricing gap at this tier.
What’s new in these tools
The two have converged on the same two features. Fathom can now capture a meeting without a bot joining (audio and transcript, or transcript only) from its desktop app, and Otter records bot-free from its desktop app too. Both now expose meeting history to ChatGPT and Claude through MCP. If the visible bot was your reason to choose one over the other, it no longer separates them.
Pricing side by side
Frequently asked questions
Can I run both at once to compare them?
Yes, and it is the fastest way to decide. Both have permanent free plans, and both can join the same call. Compare the summaries for a week of real meetings rather than a single test call, because accuracy varies most with audio quality and speaker overlap.
Which one is better for client-facing calls?
Fathom, in most cases. Guests do not need to install anything, and the summary is shaped around what to do next rather than what was said. For internal research or interviews where you will search the transcript later, Otter is the better fit.
Do either of them replace taking notes entirely?
Not for decisions that matter. Both produce reliable summaries of what was discussed, but neither reliably captures why a decision was made. Treat the output as the record and your own note as the judgment.