Fireflies.ai vs Otter.ai
Fireflies.ai scores 9.1 to Otter.ai's 6.5 among the AI meeting assistants we rate, and is the better pick for 2 of the 4 kinds of buyer below.
Fireflies.ai wins, 9.1 to 6.5
A dollar apart and aimed at the same meetings, so the transcript itself is not where this is decided. Fireflies wraps the recording in 200+ AI Skills, conversation intelligence and deep CRM and project-management integration. Otter positions itself as a knowledge engine, with AI Chat across your entire meeting history and automatic action-item extraction that reviewers rate above expectations.
Pick Fireflies.ai if meetings feed a process. It works across Zoom, Google Meet, Teams and Webex, AskFred searches your whole meeting history in natural language, and it takes direct audio uploads for recordings made elsewhere. The CRM and project-management integrations are where it earns the extra dollar.
Pick Otter.ai if you want reliable real-time transcription and good notes without building a workflow around it. Real-time accuracy is consistently praised on G2 and Capterra, speaker identification handles clear calls well, and automatic action-item extraction genuinely exceeds expectations. $16.99/user/mo.
Best for
Who each one suits, decided on the criteria that matter to that buyer and the checked facts where the two differ.
- Keeps the meeting video: Fireflies.ai yes, Otter.ai no
- Cuts and shares clips: Fireflies.ai yes, Otter.ai no
- Languages it transcribes: 100 languages against 6 languages
- AI on the cheapest paid plan: Included against Limited
- Does not train AI on your data: Fireflies.ai yes, Otter.ai no
- Ways to reach support: 3 support channels against 2 support channels
- Tells participants it is recording: Fireflies.ai yes, Otter.ai does not say
How they score
Both are scored the same way, against the other AI meeting assistants we rate, from facts on each vendor's own pages. Fireflies.ai leads on 2 of 4 criteria.
Where they differ
Every point where the two vendors' published facts disagree, with a link to where each fact was read. "Not published" means the vendor does not say either way.
Published by only one of them
Where they match (9)
Pricing, plan by plan
Every plan each vendor publishes, monthly and yearly where both are offered.
Fireflies.ai
Otter.ai
For everything else about each tool, read the full Fireflies.ai review and Otter.ai review.
Where transcription quality actually breaks
Not in a quiet one-to-one. Otter's accuracy degrades noticeably in noisy environments and with heavy accents, which is where meeting transcription is hardest and where the value is greatest. If your calls are international or taken from open offices, test that specifically rather than trusting a demo recorded in a studio.
Two things to watch on each
Otter's bot joining calls can be intrusive. For internal meetings that is a minor irritation. For client or candidate calls it is a moment you have to manage, and some people react badly to it.
Fireflies promises more on its homepage than users report finding. Our review names a notable gap between the marketing and real-world reviews, and its newer Live Assist and Talk to Fireflies features lack enough user data to confirm they work reliably. Buy it for the transcription and integrations, treat the newest features as unproven.
Both have free tiers
Which makes this an easy one to settle empirically. Run both on the same genuinely difficult call — accents, crosstalk, poor audio — and compare the transcripts. That single test tells you more than any feature table.
Fireflies.ai vs Otter.ai: common questions
Which is more accurate?
Both are strong on clear audio. Otter's accuracy is noted to degrade in noisy environments and with heavy accents, so if that describes your calls, test both on a real recording rather than comparing claims.
Can I upload a recording instead of joining a call?
Fireflies supports direct audio upload, which is useful for recordings made outside the platform. Otter's model is centred on its notetaker joining the meeting.
Do the bots have to join visibly?
Otter's notetaker joining calls is noted as intrusive by some users, which is worth considering for client-facing or sensitive meetings.
