Avoma vs Fireflies.ai (2026)
The decision is whether you are buying a meeting system for a revenue team or a notetaker for the whole company, and who gets the security paperwork. Avoma is built for revenue teams, consolidating recording, scheduling, lead routing, coaching scores and deal risk into one subscription, and its deal intelligence add on writes values from what was said on a call back into opportunity and contact records across six named customer record systems. Fireflies is horizontal, with ten use cases from sales to podcasting and an interface on every tier, the free one included. The GTM Tech Index separates them sharply on who gets the controls. Fireflies marks its SOC 2 attestation and European data protection coverage as available on every tier, prices even its enterprise plan, and states that customer data never trains a model, with zero retention imposed on the model providers it sends meeting content to. Avoma reserves single sign on, health information handling and a signed processing agreement for its top tier, which carries a ten seat minimum, and publishes no training position. Neither publishes a transcription accuracy figure, which is the thing both are selling.
- The meeting record should update your pipeline. Avoma's deal intelligence add on writes values from call content back into opportunity and contact fields, with two way sync across six named customer record and support platforms, including mid market systems most conversation tools skip, where Fireflies delivers notes into the tools a customer already runs.
- You want one subscription for the revenue workflow. Avoma consolidates recording, scheduling with round robin, lead routing, coaching scores against named methodologies and deal risk alerts, and independent reviewers describe it as the consolidated alternative to running four separate point contracts.
- Many people need to watch and few need to record. Avoma's viewers and collaborators are free and consume no seats, its seat caps of twenty five and one hundred define each tier numerically, and roughly thirteen hundred and sixty reviews rate it four point six out of five.
- A small team needs the security paperwork without an enterprise contract. Fireflies marks its SOC 2 Type II attestation and European data protection coverage as available on every tier including the free one, and runs a trust center on its own subdomain and a bug bounty, where Avoma reserves single sign on, health information handling and a signed processing agreement for a top tier with a ten seat minimum.
- Your legal team asks where recordings go for inference. Fireflies states that customer data is never used for AI training and imposes a zero retention position on the model providers it sends meeting content to, the downstream question almost no vendor in the GTM Tech Index answers, where Avoma publishes no training position at all.
- Meetings happen well beyond sales. Fireflies addresses ten use cases with their own pages, from recruiting and product research to healthcare and podcasting, transcribes in more than a hundred languages, lets transcripts, summaries and recordings be downloaded from the first paid tier, and offers its interface on the free plan.
This comparison is published by GTM Tech Index, an independent research platform that compares go to market software vendors objectively. Avoma and Fireflies.ai are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials, under the GTM Tech Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Avoma | Fireflies.ai | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Conversation Intelligence | Conversation Intelligence |
| Founded | 2017 | Not published |
| Headquarters | Palo Alto, California, United States | Not published |
| Website | www.avoma.com | fireflies.ai |
Side by Side
| Axis | A Avoma |
F Fireflies.ai |
|---|---|---|
|
AI Capability
|
||
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| AI Disclosure and Model Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
|
Compliance and Risk
|
||
| Outreach Compliance Posture | ||
| Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Data Licensing and Provenance | ||
| Platform Terms Exposure | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity | ||
|
Integration and Deployment
|
||
| Ecosystem and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
|
Commercial and Operational
|
||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Exit and Data Portability | ||
| Deliverability and Sending Discipline | ||
| Segment and Market Coverage | ||
The short version of each
Avoma
Avoma is a Palo Alto based meeting and revenue platform founded in 2017 that records, transcribes and summarizes meetings in a claimed seventy plus languages, and adds a scheduler, round robin and lead routing, call scoring against named methodologies, deal risk and forecasting. The GTM Tech Index grades it B on AI centrality, since without the models what remains is a recorder and a calendar tool, and B on commercial transparency for publishing its full ladder: base tiers at nineteen, twenty nine and thirty nine dollars a recorder seat annually, priced add ons for coaching, deal intelligence and lead routing, and free seats for viewers. It takes B on ecosystem depth, with two way sync across six named customer record and support platforms, B on segment coverage, where seat caps and minimums define each tier, and B on platform terms. It grades C on data privacy and security, because single sign on, health information handling and a signed processing agreement are reserved for the top tier.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Fireflies.ai
Fireflies.ai is an AI notetaker that joins meetings on the major conferencing services, or captures through a browser extension with no bot, and turns them into transcripts in more than a hundred languages, summaries, action items, a question answering assistant across every meeting held, topic trackers, drafted email replies and voice agents. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on AI centrality, since every capability it sells is inference, and A on commercial transparency, publishing a per seat figure on every tier, the enterprise one included, with storage, recording length and assistant credit allowances stated. It takes B on stewardship, stating that customer data never trains a model and that zero retention is imposed on its model providers, B on security, marking its SOC 2 Type II attestation and European data protection coverage as available on every tier including the free one, and B on exit, ecosystem depth and segment coverage. It grades C on recipient disclosure, since the bot's display name can be changed and botless capture removes the visible signal.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Fireflies better than Avoma?
For trust controls at a small team's price, yes. Fireflies grades A on commercial transparency and B on security, stewardship and exit in the GTM Tech Index, where Avoma grades C on security, stewardship and exit. For a revenue team that wants scheduling, coaching and deal intelligence writing into its customer record system, Avoma is built for that workflow and Fireflies is not. Both grade C on model transparency and recipient disclosure.
How much do Avoma and Fireflies cost?
Avoma prices three base tiers at nineteen, twenty nine and thirty nine dollars a recorder seat on annual billing, with coaching and deal intelligence at twenty nine each and lead routing at nineteen, all per seat, so a working sales seat with both intelligence add ons lands near seventy seven dollars. Viewers are free, and the top tier is annual only with a ten seat minimum. Fireflies runs a permanent free plan and publishes a per seat rate on every paid tier, its enterprise tier included, with storage and assistant credit allowances stated. Graded by GTM Tech Index against seventeen capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Avoma or Fireflies use my meetings to train AI?
Fireflies states on its pricing page that customer data is never used for AI training and that zero retention is imposed on the model providers handling meeting content. The statement sits on a marketing panel rather than in the agreement, and its two wordings differ between data and personal data, so ask for it in writing. Avoma publishes no position on whether recordings or transcripts train any model, which is why the GTM Tech Index grades it C on stewardship.
Can meeting participants tell Avoma or Fireflies is recording?
With Avoma, yes, since its bot joins as a visible named participant. With Fireflies, by default, since its notetaker appears in the participant list, but the display name can be customized and a browser extension mode records with no bot present. Neither vendor describes an in meeting announcement, a consent prompt or a record that consent was obtained, which matters where every party must agree before a call is recorded. Graded by GTM Tech Index against seventeen capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does the GTM Tech Index grade Avoma and Fireflies.ai?
Both are graded on the same seventeen capability and compliance axes from public sources, at a documented depth of seventeen each, and neither holds a D. Avoma takes B on AI centrality, commercial transparency, ecosystem depth, segment coverage and platform terms, and C on twelve. Fireflies.ai takes A on AI centrality and commercial transparency, B on security, stewardship, exit, ecosystem depth and segment coverage, and C on ten. The index publishes no composite score and declares no winner.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Conversation Intelligence page.
The shared silence is accuracy, the thing both are selling. Every downstream feature on both platforms reads the transcript, from Avoma's call scores and deal risk to Fireflies' assistant answers, and neither publishes a word error rate for any language or names the model that produces the transcript. The second shared silence is consent from the people being recorded.
Both capture external participants who never bought either product, several jurisdictions require every party to agree before a conversation is recorded, and neither describes an announcement, a consent prompt or a per meeting consent record. The two differ in the default. Avoma's bot joins as a visible named participant.
Fireflies' bot joins visibly by default, but its display name can be changed so the entry need not announce a recording, and a browser extension mode captures with no bot present at all. The benign reading is that both leave consent to the customer, who carries the obligation. Ask both in writing for measured transcription accuracy by language and what an external participant sees before recording begins, and ask Avoma which fields its write back may overwrite.