Home / Directory / AI SaaS tooling / AI meeting assistants / Avoma
Avoma
AI meeting assistant with conversation and revenue intelligence add-ons, published seat pricing, and CRM sync aimed at mid-market revenue teams.
B2B sales and customer teams that want automatic notes plus optional conversation and revenue intelligence without a Gong-class platform fee.
Individuals who only want a free personal recorder with minimal team analytics.
Co-founded by Aditya Kothadiya.
Verdict
Avoma is a good fit when meeting notes and coaching keep living in separate tools and you want one mid-market stack. Public packaging is unusually clear for conversation intelligence. Practitioners like CRM push and scorecards; buyers who only need a free personal notepad may still prefer Fathom, and clip-first enablement teams may still prefer Grain.
Score Breakdown
How Avoma scores in the categories that matter to its buyers.
Pricing
Avoma publishes Startup, Organization, and Enterprise recorder seats on avoma.com/pricing, with optional Conversation Intelligence, Revenue Intelligence, and Lead Router add-ons. Figures below are USD list signals as of September 2026 when billed annually; viewers stay free.
| Plan / SKU | Meter | Price (USD) | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Startup | per recorder / month | From ~$19 | Notes, transcription, 1:1 scheduler |
| Organization | per recorder / month | From ~$29 | Custom topics, group scheduling |
| Enterprise | per recorder / month | From ~$39 | SSO, HIPAA path, success extras |
| CI / RI add-ons | per seat / month | From ~$29 each | Coaching scorecards and deal intelligence |
The Field at a Glance
How Avoma compares with other AI meeting assistants vendors we reviewed, by Overall Score and relative typical engagement cost.
Avoma scores 7.9 in AI meeting assistants, under Fathom (7.6) and Fireflies (7.3) and ahead of Grain (6.8). Relative cost lands mid-band once conversation or revenue add-ons are on.
Compared with …
- Avoma vs Fathom 7.9/7.6
- Avoma vs Grain 7.9/6.8
Use-case matrix
| Use case | Fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| AI meeting notes + CRM | Strong | Core Avoma motion. |
| Conversation intelligence coaching | Strong | Paid add-on depth. |
| Revenue / deal intelligence | Strong | Bundled vs Gong-class stacks. |
| Free personal recorder at scale | Mixed | Fathom stronger PLG. |
| Clip-first enablement libraries | Mixed | Grain often sharper. |
| GPU cloud clusters | Poor | Wrong subcategory. |
Who it’s for
Good fit
- Revenue teams consolidating notes and coaching
- CS and sales leaders who want scorecards
- Buyers who want published mid-market pricing
Poor fit
- Solo users who only want a free recorder
- Teams that ban meeting bots
- Buyers seeking only code review tools
Review Excerpts
Below are excerpts from public reviews.
“I can tell you that our top sales people couldn't live without Avoma.”
“We thought we were paying the Startup price. Conversation Intelligence and Revenue Intelligence cost extra, so we paid more than the Startup price.”
“We record the sales call, score it, and the notes go into HubSpot.”
Methodology
This page is an independent evaluation of Avoma for buyers comparing options in ai meeting assistants. AI Industry Reviews accepts no sponsorships, advertising, or pay-for-placement fees. Avoma did not pay for this review.
What we scored
The headline number is an Overall Score on a 0-10 scale. Eight criteria sit under it in two groups.
- Buyer outcomes (for ai meeting assistants)
- Meeting notes & CRM sync
- Conversation / coaching add-ons
- Published pricing clarity
- Free-tier personal recorder breadth
- Company & commercial
- Innovation & product leadership
- Project management & communication
- Pricing
- Contract fairness
Pricing measures whether the price looks fair for the value delivered, including packaging and renewal friction that show up in real buying cycles.
Score Composition
| Input | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 40% | A proprietary read of what practitioners say about likes, complaints, and day-to-day use, including public review sites, forums, and private chat rooms. Paid reviews and pay-for-play sites such as Clutch are out of scope. |
| Product | 35% | Hands-on look at screens and workflows. |
| Pricing | 15% | Whether the price looks fair for what you get. |
| Docs & training | 10% | Docs, tutorials, and training material. |
How we balanced the evidence
The Overall Score is the simple average of the eight criteria. Recommendation language follows that score and the fit pattern described above.
Scope
Avoma is graded here as ai meeting assistants. Criteria scores can move as more review volume and product checks are added.