If your team is trying to reduce meetings and communicate more clearly with async video, Loom is often the first tool you try.

But once more people get involved – across teams, roles, and workflows – many teams start to feel friction.

This is where Videolink comes in.

Below is a clear, opinionated look at why teams choose Videolink instead of Loom when async video becomes a core part of how they work.

The Problem With Loom for Teams

Loom works well for individual recordings.

It becomes harder to manage when video is used across an entire organization.

Teams often run into issues like:

• Seat-based pricing that scales with headcount, not usage
• Collaboration happening outside the video (Slack, email, docs)
• Admin overhead for managing users and access
• App and extension installs across devices
• Limited structure for shared libraries and team workflows

The result is predictable: higher costs, more friction, and uneven adoption across the team.

Why Teams Switch to Videolink

Videolink is built specifically for team-wide async collaboration, not just recording screens.

It’s designed for sales, support, onboarding, product, and internal communication – where multiple people need to create, share, and respond.

Teams choose Videolink because it offers:

• No seat-based pricing – your whole organization can participate
• Browser-based recording – no installs or updates required
• Friction-free sharing – one link, with optional access control
• Team-ready collaboration – comments in context, reusable videos, shared libraries
• Built-in editing and branding – trim, blur, callouts, logos, CTAs
• Clear analytics – see who watched, what they watched, and when

Instead of asking “Who gets a seat?”, teams simply start using video where it helps.

Collaboration Without Meetings

Videolink is designed to replace recurring meetings, not just complement them.

With async video:

• People record when it suits them
• Teammates watch and respond on their own schedule
• Context stays attached to the video
• Follow-ups are clearer and faster

This leads to:

• fewer status calls
• fewer repeated explanations
• faster onboarding
• less interruption-driven work

For teams that work across time zones or flexible schedules, this is a major shift.

Cost Control Without Seat-Based Pricing

Seat-based pricing discourages adoption.

When only a few people “have access,” video stays siloed.

Videolink removes this barrier by letting teams scale async communication based on actual usage, not headcount. Whether 5 or 500 people participate, the model stays simple – and predictable.

This makes Videolink a practical Loom replacement for teams that want broad adoption without admin overhead.

When Loom Still Makes Sense

Loom can still be a good choice if:

• You only need occasional 1-to-1 recordings
• Video is personal, not team-wide
• Collaboration happens elsewhere anyway

But once async video becomes part of how teams collaborate, Loom often starts to feel limiting.

Still Deciding?

If you want a neutral, feature-by-feature breakdown, start here:

👉 Loom vs Videolink: A side-by-side comparison

If you’re still exploring options more broadly:

👉 Top Loom alternatives for teams

Final Take

Loom is a solid recording tool.

Videolink is a team communication platform built for async work.

If your goal is to reduce meetings, improve clarity, and let your whole team participate – Videolink is the better long-term choice.