COMPARE:
MeetGeek or Fireflies for automatic meeting notes
A straight comparison of MeetGeek and Fireflies for getting notes out of every call without taking them, answered on the same seven dimensions as every other compare page here. Mamba Labs builds Apify actors, and neither of these is one of them, so there is no third column on this page.
If you only read one part
Fireflies has the larger integration surface and the better search across a big archive. MeetGeek is simpler, cheaper at the entry tier and quicker to have working.
The same questions, both tools
| MeetGeek | Fireflies | |
|---|---|---|
| What it actually does | Records, transcribes and summarises meetings, then pushes the notes into the CRM and the team wiki. | Joins the call, transcribes it, and files the result into a searchable archive of every meeting. |
| Coverage and hit rate | The main video platforms, many transcription languages, and team wide meeting analytics. | The main platforms, plus dial in numbers and uploads, across a long list of languages. |
| What it costs | Per user per month, banded by how many hours it transcribes, with a free tier that records a little. | Per seat per month, with the archive length and the AI credits set by the tier. |
| How it fits a workflow | It joins from the calendar, so nobody has to remember. Integrations move the notes onward. | A real API and a broad integration list, so the transcripts can be worked with elsewhere. |
| Where the data comes from | Your own meetings. Nothing else. | The recorded call, with speaker separation applied afterwards. |
| What it takes to set up | Minutes. Connect the calendar and it turns up to the next call. | Connect the calendar and pick which meetings it joins. Minutes. |
| Where it stops | It joins as a visible bot, which changes some conversations and is not allowed in others. | A bot in every meeting, and the storage and search limits arrive sooner than the seat price suggests. |
The same seven questions are asked on every compare page here, in this order, so two of these pages can be read against each other.
Who wins what
- MeetGeek wins on how it fits a workflow, what it takes to set up. A meeting recorder that joins the call as a bot and writes the summary afterwards.
- Fireflies wins on coverage and hit rate. A meeting recorder with a searchable archive and an API over it.
- Nobody wins on what it actually does, what it costs, where the data comes from, where it stops. MeetGeek and Fireflies give the same answer on those, and we are not going to invent a difference.
Both products
What we would actually do
For a small team, MeetGeek does the job and costs less, and the summaries are good enough that nobody reads the transcript. Fireflies pulls ahead once the archive is the asset: a year of calls you actually search, integrations into everything, and analytics a manager will use. Both join as a visible bot, which is the thing to check before either. Some customers will not have it in the room and some jurisdictions want consent from everybody. A recorder switched off for the important calls is recording the wrong half of your pipeline.