Don't take our
word for it.
Take your audio.
Every "best AI note taker of 2026" list you have read was written by someone who sells one of the entries. So we are not going to tell you we are the best. We are going to hand you a test, a judge prompt that names nobody, and an open invitation to run it against anything you like, in any language your meetings are held in — and we will publish the ones we lose.
Send us a meeting.
We put it to the test.
Send us a meeting — we put it to the test and post it with your name. 300 free minutes.
Pick a meeting in the app
In the MeetNotes app, tap Put us to the test, then pick one of your meetings or upload its audio. A real meeting of 20 minutes or more with 2 or more people, that you took part in. Lectures, classes, talks and podcasts are not accepted.
Confirm everyone consented
Tick that everyone in the meeting gave their consent, and you give yours, for MeetNotes to use it for any purpose: testing it against other apps and publishing it anywhere, including ads. Type the name you want shown.
We test it, send you the results and post them
We run the same meeting through other apps ourselves, send you the results, and post them with your name. Other names spoken in the meeting are blanked out.
- 300 free minutes, once per person. They land when your result goes live — or, if you asked to see the post first, when you OK it.
- 200 more for a LinkedIn post. Share your result on LinkedIn from your own profile and tag MeetNotes (or link getmeetnotes.com).
- A real meeting. 20 minutes or more, 2 or more people, and you were in it. Not a lecture, class, talk or podcast.
- Whichever app wins. If another app does better on your meeting, we post that too.
- Only your name. We show the name you give us. Every other name spoken in the meeting is blanked out.
- See it first, if you like. Tick "Show me the post before you publish it" and nothing goes out until you say OK.
- Take it down any time. Write to support@getmeetnotes.com and we remove it.
Only send a meeting if everyone in it agreed. If it was confidential, run the test yourself instead — everything below works without sending us anything.
Here is exactly what
we are claiming.
For a meeting held in a room — people around a table, one phone on the table, more than one language in the air — we believe MeetNotes produces minutes you can send without editing more often than anything else you can install on a phone today.
Nothing, until you check it. It is a belief we hold because of what we chose to build, and beliefs held by founders about their own products are the least reliable information on the internet. Which is why the rest of this page is a test rather than an argument.
Note what we are not claiming: that we beat a dedicated microphone worn on a shirt, that we transcribe a Zoom call better than a bot sitting inside the Zoom call, or that we are cheaper than free. Different tools, different jobs. This challenge is about the room.
Four steps.
About thirty minutes.
Record one real meeting
Not a podcast, not a scripted demo — a real meeting with real interruptions, real accents, and people talking over each other. Twenty minutes is plenty. Keep the audio file.
Run it through both
Put the same file through MeetNotes and through whatever you use today, or whatever a listicle told you to use. Same audio, same day, no second attempts and no cherry-picking a good run.
Strip the names, label them A and B
Delete every logo, footer and product name from both outputs. If the judge can tell whose is whose, you have not run a test — you have run a brand-preference survey.
Let an AI you already trust judge it
Paste both into ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or all of them, with the prompt on this page. You are not asking us who won. You are asking a machine with no stake in the answer.
One rule we ask you to hold us to: run it once. If you record the meeting again because the first result was bad, you are testing the meeting, not the tool. Whatever came out of the first run is the result — for us as much as for them.
Copy this into
any AI you trust.
It is blind, it names no product, and it explicitly permits a tie. Read it before you use it — if you can find a way it favours us, tell us and we will change it.
Works in ChatGPT, Claude and Copilot. Running it in two of them and comparing the verdicts is better than running it in one.
Seven things minutes
are actually judged on
Not features. Not language counts on a pricing page. These are the seven ways a set of minutes fails in front of the people who were in the meeting.
| Criterion | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Transcript fidelity | Read along with the recording. How many words are wrong, missing, or invented? Invented text is the worst failure — it is confidently wrong. |
| Speaker separation | Is every line attached to the right person? Count how often two people are fused into one speaker, or one person is split into two. |
| Names, numbers and dates | Proper nouns, amounts, quantities, and deadlines. These are the parts of a transcript that get forwarded, and the parts a general-purpose model most often smooths over. |
| Language handling | What happens to a sentence that starts in one language and finishes in another? Most tools quietly translate it, drop it, or transcribe it phonetically. |
| Decisions captured | List every decision the meeting actually reached. Now check which ones survived into each set of minutes, and whether either invented a decision nobody made. |
| Action items with owners | Every task the meeting agreed, with the owner and date the meeting actually gave. Where nobody named an owner or a date, "not stated" is the right answer — a confident invented deadline is worse than a blank. |
| Sendable as-is | Could you forward the output to everyone who was in the room, unedited, without embarrassment? This is the only question that matters at 7pm. |
Compare us against
any of these.
There is no exclusion list, because an exclusion list tells you what a company is afraid of. Here is the honest map of the category, including what each kind of tool is genuinely better at than we are.
Otter, Fireflies, Fathom, tl;dv, Read, Granola
Built for calls: a bot joins your Zoom, Teams or Meet and transcribes the stream. Excellent at that job. There is no bot to send into a room with a table in it.
Plaud Note, Plaud NotePin, and similar
A dedicated microphone plus companion software. Genuinely better than a phone for all-day wearable capture and phone-call pickup.
Rev, Sonix, Descript, Notta
Strong transcripts, editor-first workflows, and in some cases human transcribers. Built around producing a document from a file rather than around a meeting that ends at 6pm and needs sending at 6:10.
ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot
Superb summarisers of text you hand them. They do not record your meeting, do not separate speakers, and make you repeat the whole ritual by hand after every single one.
Five decisions that
show up in the output
The room, not the call
MeetNotes was built for a phone lying on a table in a room with eight people in it — the case the meeting-bot category structurally cannot serve. That is the whole design, not a mode we bolted on.
Sentences that switch language
There is no language to select before recording. A sentence that starts in Hindi and ends in English is the normal case here, not an unsupported edge — and it is the single fastest way to break a transcription tool.
Minutes in 100+ languages
The room speaks whatever it speaks; the minutes come out in any of 110 languages. Record in Hinglish, send the MoM in English. For comparison, Otter's own help centre lists six transcription languages.
Speaker names you confirm
The app asks you to confirm who is who before you export, instead of silently guessing and letting a wrong name go out to twelve people. Guessed names are the failure nobody notices until it is embarrassing.
Minutes shaped like minutes
Summary, key points, decisions, and action items with owners and dates — the format an MoM has had for a century — as a PDF and an editable Word file, ready for WhatsApp. Not a wall of bullet points.
Four conditions, and
they bind us too
A real meeting. More than one person, actually talking to each other. A scripted demo or a podcast tells us nothing, because neither has the interruptions and cross-talk that break these tools.
Long enough to show something. Short clips flatter everyone. The failures that matter — a speaker drifting onto the wrong label, a decision quietly dropped — need ten minutes or more to show up.
The same audio, both sides. Not the same meeting recorded twice on two devices. The identical file, or the comparison measures microphones instead of software.
One attempt each. Whatever came out of the first run stands. Re-running until a result improves tests the meeting, not the tool — and that rule costs us more than it costs you.
Your name on it.
Nobody else's.
- The result: which app did better, and on what.
- Quotes from the meeting that show the difference.
- Which apps it was tested against, named.
- Your name, exactly as you typed it.
- Anyone else's name. Every other name spoken in the meeting is blanked out.
- Anything from a meeting where you have not confirmed that everyone agreed.
You stay in charge. Ask to see the post first and nothing goes out until you OK it. Changed your mind later? Write to support@getmeetnotes.com and we take it down. See privacy and delete my data.
Every head-to-head,
including the losses.
MeetNotes vs Fathom
Winner: MeetNotes on the judge's scorecard — but Fathom got the names right, and we did not
A 31-minute online call with three speakers, in Hindi and English mixed within the same sentences. Published anonymously: no participant, company or meeting content is identified, and none was needed to score it.
Judged by: ChatGPT (OpenAI) — Fathom 5.7, MeetNotes 8.1
The judge compared the two outputs side by side as Tool A and Tool B, from the same recording, rather than by product name.
Rubric: Seven categories, listed as scored; the overall is their equal-weight average. They overlap with the seven published above but are not the same list, so they are shown as scored rather than re-labelled.
| Criterion | Fathom | MeetNotes |
|---|---|---|
| Overall (average of the seven) | 5.7 | 8.1 |
| Transcript readability and coherence | 6.0 | 8.5 |
| Speaker attribution consistency | 4.5 | 8.0 |
| Original spoken language kept | 6.0 | 9.5 |
| Summary usefulness and coverage | 7.5 | 8.0 |
| Decisions and their conditions | 6.0 | 8.0 |
| Action items, owners and timing | 5.0 | 7.0 |
| Risks, open questions and follow-ups | 5.0 | 7.5 |
- Speaker names. Fathom named all three speakers correctly, because it takes names from the call itself. MeetNotes put the wrong name on two of the three: our voice recognition matched them to voices from other meetings, and that match overrode a speaker introducing themselves by name.
- Company names. Fathom had both companies right. Our summary misheard one company's name and got wrong which side was presenting to which.
- Questions by side. Fathom listed the questions each side asked as their own section. Our minutes for this call had no such section.
- None of the three shows up in the judge's scores, which rated speaker attribution for consistency rather than for names. We found them checking both outputs against the recording ourselves — and names are the first thing a reader of the minutes would notice.
What we changed after this test: when the audio did not come from the phone's own microphone — a call, the notetaker, an uploaded file — a voice match is now only a suggestion until you confirm it, and the minutes no longer say who presented or sold to whom unless someone in the meeting says so.
MeetNotes vs Microsoft Teams
Winner: MeetNotes — except on raw completeness, which Teams won
A 38-minute English-language call between two sides, with commercial and technical vocabulary throughout. Published anonymously — no participant, company or meeting content is identified beyond the individual misheard terms below, and none was needed to score it.
Judged by: ChatGPT (OpenAI) — Microsoft Teams ~6.8, MeetNotes ~8.8
Run blind — the product names were stripped from both outputs before scoring, so neither could be traced to a brand.
Rubric: Transcript against transcript. The supplied Teams export contained the transcript only, with no summary or action-item section in the file, so there was nothing on that side to score our minutes against — that is what was in the export we were given, not a statement about what Teams can produce. The nine criteria scored are listed as scored; like the run below, they are not the seven published above.
| Criterion | Microsoft Teams | MeetNotes |
|---|---|---|
| Overall, transcript against transcript | ~6.8 | ~8.8 |
| Transcript completeness | 8.5 | 8.2 |
| Readability | 6.5 | 9.0 |
| Speaker separation | 7.5 | 8.5 |
| Names and product terminology | 5.0 | 9.0 |
| Numbers and commercial detail | 8.0 | 8.8 |
| Context understood | 6.0 | 9.2 |
| Factual caution | 6.5 | 8.8 |
| Concision | 5.0 | 9.2 |
| Business usefulness | 5.8 | 9.0 |
- Transcript completeness, 8.5 to 8.2. Teams caught more of the words, including small talk and short interjections that our transcript dropped.
Teams won completeness: it caught more of the words, including small talk we dropped. Then it spent that advantage on the proper nouns the meeting was actually about.
“Zero”
The word wasXero
“my orb / my op / my ops”
The word wasMYOB
“Israel”
The word wasNew Zealand
“Datablix · Jenny · Vortex AI”
The word wasDatabricks · Genie · Cortex AI
One further error is not shown, because printing it would identify the company whose meeting this was: the name of the product the entire call was about, rendered throughout as an unrelated personal name.
This result on its own page The full write-up of this result
MeetNotes vs Fireflies
Winner: MeetNotes
An 89-minute call in English with Hinglish stretches running through it, several speakers (MeetNotes separated six voices, Fireflies four), and heavy technical vocabulary. Published anonymously: no participant, company or content is identified, and none was needed to score it.
Judged by: ChatGPT (OpenAI) — Fireflies 4.7–5.2, MeetNotes 8.7–9.2
Run blind — the product names were stripped before scoring, so neither output could be traced to a brand. The overall is given as the range the judge's report gave, not a margin of error we calculated.
Rubric: This run predates the seven-criterion scorecard published above and used its own ten criteria, listed as scored. Where a run uses a scorecard other than the published seven, it says so here rather than quietly re-labelling the rows to match.
| Criterion | Fireflies | MeetNotes |
|---|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | 4.7–5.2 | 8.7–9.2 |
| Transcript quality | ~4.0 | ~9.0 |
| Hinglish / multilingual | ~4.0 | ~9.5 |
| Technical terminology | ~3.5 | ~9.0 |
| Speaker accuracy | ~4.0 | ~8.0 |
| Summary quality | ~6.5 | ~9.0 |
| Concision | ~7.0 | ~9.0 |
| Decisions captured | ~3.0 | ~9.0 |
| Action items | ~5.0 | ~8.0 |
| Follow-ups | ~2.0 | ~9.0 |
| Factual caution | ~5.0 | ~8.5 |
Nowhere on this scorecard: MeetNotes scored higher on every criterion the judge rated. That is this meeting, not a rule.
This result on its own page The full write-up of this result
One meeting is one meeting. A result here shows what happened to this recording, on this day, with these judges — not a general ranking, not an average, and not a claim about how either tool performs on your audio. That is the entire reason the protocol is published: the only comparison that decides anything for you is the one you run yourself.
Disclosure: These are publisher-run evaluations using an external AI assistant, not independent endorsements. Neither a neutral judge nor the absence of conflicts of interest should be assumed.
Fair questions about
a challenge run by
an interested party
Is this a real challenge or a marketing gimmick?
It is real, and it is deliberately designed so we can lose it. The judge prompt on this page is blind and names no product, we do not see your audio unless you send it to us, and we have committed to publishing head-to-heads we lose on this page along with what we changed afterwards. A comparison you run yourself, judged by a model we do not control, is the only kind of proof worth anything.
Which apps can I compare MeetNotes against?
Any of them. Otter, Fireflies, Notta, Fathom, tl;dv, Read, Granola, Rev, Sonix, Descript, a Plaud device, a general AI chatbot, or your company's in-house tool. We have no exclusions, because an exclusion list is how you tell people what you are afraid of.
Which AI should judge it?
Whichever you already trust — ChatGPT, Claude or Copilot. Running the same prompt through two or three of them is better, because it shows you whether the result is a real gap or one model's taste. If they disagree, that itself is the answer: the two outputs are close.
Why blind? Why strip the product names?
Because large language models have read the internet, and the internet is full of marketing about the big brands. Leave the names in and you are measuring brand recognition. Take them out and you are measuring the minutes.
What do I get for sending you a meeting?
300 free minutes on your MeetNotes account, once per person. They land when your result goes live — or, if you asked to see the post first, when you OK it. Whichever app wins. Post your result on LinkedIn and tag MeetNotes for 200 more.
How do I send you a meeting?
In the MeetNotes app, tap Put us to the test. Pick one of your meetings or upload its audio, confirm that everyone in it agreed we may publish the test, and type the name you want shown. That is all — we do the comparison ourselves.
Can I take the post down later?
Yes, any time. Write to support@getmeetnotes.com and we remove it. If you would rather check it before it goes out, tick "Show me the post before you publish it" when you send the meeting.
Can you just read my Otter or Fireflies share link?
No, and it is worth knowing why before you rely on one. A share link from those tools resolves to an app that loads its content only after checking who is signed in — to anyone who is not you it is a login wall, with no transcript, no summary and no audio behind it. We are also not going to build something that scrapes a competitor's product to get around that: it would breach their terms, it would break the first time they changed a page, and a challenge whose credibility rests on playing fair cannot be run by cheating at the intake step. Use their export button instead — it is your data and it takes one click.
What happens if MeetNotes loses?
We publish it here with the criterion we lost on, we fix what lost, and we tell you when it is fixed. We would rather find out from a stranger's recording than from a customer who quietly stopped using it.
Do you need my meeting audio?
Only if you want us to run the test and post it for the 300 minutes. Otherwise the test is yours to run and yours to keep — the four steps and the judge prompt on this page work without sending us anything. See the privacy policy for what we store and for how long.
Where the third-party claims on this page come from
- Otter transcription languages (six: English, Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Chinese Simplified) — help.otter.ai — Supported languages, checked 24 August 2026
Deliberately absent: competitor pricing. Prices change without notice, and a stale price on a comparison page is a false statement about someone else's business. Check theirs on their own site, and ours on our pricing page.
Run the test on your own meeting
Free to start — 100 minutes of recording included, no card. Then send us a meeting to put to the test, for 300 more.