New Blog: Zoom vs. Teams – Which is best for member meetings?

February 6, 2026 - (Ottawa, ON)

Over the past several years, Zoom and Microsoft Teams have become two of the most widely used platforms for hosting online meetings. While both tools allow users to meet, chat, and share content online, the experience of running and participating in meetings can feel very different depending on which of these platforms that you use.  In 2025 I noticed a shift away from Zoom by some sport organizations for its member meetings, perhaps to save on costs or due to a familiarity for Teams because it is commonly used in the workplace.

I recognize that there are other platforms out there as well; Sport Law once subscribed to GoTo Meeting for virtual gatherings and other well-known platforms include Google Meet, Webex, and of course, who can forget Skype?  However, the intent of this blog is to focus on the two most common platforms. When you research Zoom and Teams either via their websites, via business articles, or via an A.I. comparison search you will receive a detailed explanation of the many features that each platform can offer, with an emphasis on ‘intuitive tools’ that foster ‘collaborative participation’. The intent of this blog is to consider the effectiveness of each platform specifically when hosting member meetings such as annual or special meetings. Having supported hundreds of virtual member meetings since 2020, I’ve seen my share of both platforms and wish to share my view from the perspective of a parliamentarian. 

Spoiler-alert: I am pro-Zoom and this blog will highlight why I recommend Zoom versus Teams for hosting member meetings.

My comparison between Zoom and Teams focuses on two key factors: host management and participant engagement.

Host Management

Zoom was built from the ground up as a video-conferencing platform whereas Teams was created as part of a broader Microsoft 365 suite, with a focus on workspace cohesion. This is important to note because it affects how each platform empowers the meeting organizer.

Zoom has clearly defined roles for its managers: Host, Co-Host, Alternative Host, and Panelist (for webinars). Teams roles for its managers include Organizer, Co-Organizer, and Presenter/Attendee. Both platforms require pre-meeting set-up to enable (or disable) these roles, which can pose potential issues in real-time (i.e. Co-Host is not enabled in the Zoom account settings so only one person has host functionality, or in Teams the Co-Organizers are not pre-assigned prior so only one person has control).  Assuming that roles are enabled or pre-assigned, Zoom has greater flexibility in terms of ad-hoc Host assignment (i.e. adding or changing co-hosts or panelists on the fly).

In addition, Hosts on Zoom have greater controls than Organizers do on Teams.  These include:

• The Chat function in Zoom permits private chat messaging which can be very helpful for member meetings. It allows important behind-the-scenes conversations between Co-Hosts that does not distract the meeting. When serving as a voting scrutineer, I am able to utilize the private chat function to manually collect votes in situations where participants are having difficulties navigating the online voting technology. This is particularly useful during a secret ballot vote where participants are only sharing their vote in confidence with the scrutineer versus the entire assembly. Plus, they don’t have to resort to another technology like email or text messaging. In addition, the Chat function in Zoom can be limited to ‘Hosts only’ which means that participants can only send messages to the Host or Co-Hosts, thereby mitigating unwanted side-chatter and distractions during the meeting while still providing an avenue to members for technical support.  
• Hosts/Co-Hosts can easily update participant screen names in real-time during the meeting, which is helpful for validating attendees, identifying their role (i.e. the organization they represent, whether or not they are voting), and preventing delays caused by unknown or inappropriate screen names.
• Hosts/Co-Hosts can easily mute singular participants who are disturbing the meeting either through unwanted background noise or dilatory behaviour (i.e. interruptions, abusive language, delay tactics).

For those three reasons above, Zoom offers a distinct advantage to Teams as it relates to moderating your member meetings. Other management capabilities to consider are group size and overall access to control functions by the Hosts/Organizers. Zoom can accommodate up to 1000 participants and its webinar functionality provides even greater degrees of participant control for larger groups, whereas Teams maxes out at 300 participants.  In Zoom there is a dedicated ‘Security’ tab for quick actions (lock meeting, enable waiting room, restrict screen sharing) and has easily accessible bulk participant management tools (breakout room, stop video, Q&A moderation). Teams does also offer in-meeting tools similar to Zoom (mute all, remove participants, spotlight) and does offer strong pre-meeting setup functions (i.e. lobby rules, presenter permissions, allowed mic/camera use, who can share content). So, in some instances, Teams offers similar functionality, Zoom provides a greater number of management controls than Teams, which can be particularly useful for larger groups, meeting efficiency, and mitigating unnecessary behaviours.

Participant Engagement

For the participant, Zoom focuses on fast, simple, meeting-centric interactions whereas Teams is built for engagement throughout the Microsoft ecosystem and offers integration with its other Apps (Planner, OneNote, Loop).  For member meetings, both platforms offer the basic functions that include mute/unmute, hand raising, and polling.  Both also offer a multitude of emojis as well as the Breakout Room function (Teams Breakout Rooms are labelled as ‘less fluid’ for moving participants on the fly). 

From my perspective, the key difference in the participant experience for these two platforms is the viewing format(s). Zoom offers a variety of viewing formats beyond the standard Gallery view and allows the participant to adjust their personal viewing screen when the host is screen sharing (i.e. by increasing or decreasing the size of the screen-share relative to the video screens).  This is particularly helpful when sharing key documents that are very detailed, like financial statements. It allows the participant to focus on either the group (with more people on one screen than Teams) or a singular person (i.e. speaker, presenter who is not spotlighted) more intuitively than Teams and in general, it provides the participant with more viewing control. Teams recently created a ‘Together’ viewing mode which places all participants together on a virtual background; I personally find this mode to be visually distracting for member meetings and I have also had difficulties accessing this mode in certain meetings (i.e. only accessible to Organizers).

In addition to the viewing format, I find Zoom generally easier to use. It has a simple Waiting Room with fast admit controls for participants, it is very easy for external users to join meetings (especially if they do not have a Microsoft account), and it is more intuitive for first-time users or those who are not tech savvy.  Zoom also leads most platforms in video stability and bandwidth flexibility according to my research.

Lastly, while Teams is easy to join via web browser without downloading the app (whereas Zoom often requires the app download on a PC) this has indirectly caused me sheer panic during several meetings. As someone who has multiple tabs that they navigate during a member meeting, on several occasions I have mistakenly closed the Teams meeting tab thereby exiting the meeting!  I admit that this may be more of a ‘me’ problem and it can be prevented by using the Teams app, however I prefer to use the browser for Teams because it is simpler than the app and often engages other Microsoft apps/pages that I do not want on my screen.

Summary

As I noted at the beginning, I prefer Zoom to Teams for member meetings.The flexibility in host management options is greater than Teams and from a participant experience I find that it is easier to use by a broader audience.  In my opinionZoom is worth the extra cost for member meetings even if your organization owns a Microsoft 365 suite. 

The Teams platform has improved since its inception and it certainly can be used for member meetings if that is the preference of the organization.  Teams can also be a very useful product for other types of meetings where fewer host and participant functions are required (board, committees, staff, partners, workshops).

It’s further important to note that at the time of writing this blog, that the meeting platform technologies will continue to evolve and I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future! It will be interesting to see how these platforms adapt in the coming years, and I’m regularly learning new tricks with the technology or discovering new functions. In the future I’ll probably look back at this blog and say “Wow, remember when Zoom was the platform of choice?” just like I now do with GoTo Meeting and Skype.

If you have any questions or want to learn more, contact Jason Robinson.