loomvscap

what each one actually is

Loom is the category-defining async video tool — record your screen, talk over it, send a link instead of scheduling a call. it's been the default for years and almost nobody needs onboarding to use a loom link.

Cap is an open-source screen recording tool built to do the same job — record locally or in the cloud, share a link, get comments back — but free to self-host, built on rust/tauri instead of electron, and with a direct loom importer to make switching painless.

pricing, honestly

loom's free tier now caps out around 25 videos, a 5-minute length limit, and 720p recording — a real tightening since atlassian's 2023 acquisition. paid plans start around $12.50/user/month for unlimited recording and more features.

cap's free tier has no video-count or length cap for local/personal use. the paid tier, with cloud storage, team workspaces, and custom domains, runs roughly $8/user/month — meaningfully cheaper than loom even before counting that cap's core is free to self-host entirely.

what it's actually like to use them

loom's recording flow is about as frictionless as it gets — click record, talk, stop, get a shareable link in seconds. years of polish show in small details: fast uploads, reliable comments, broad app integrations.

cap's flow is close behind and has caught up fast — the rust/tauri-based app feels lighter than loom's electron app, windows and mac parity is genuinely good, and the loom importer means you don't lose your existing library when switching. it's not quite as battle-tested at scale, but for day-to-day recording the gap has mostly closed.

who loom is for

• large enterprise sales and CS orgs already paying for loom's admin controls and analytics
• teams that need the broadest third-party integration ecosystem today
• anyone who wants the most battle-tested option and doesn't mind the price

who cap is for

• teams and individuals who want loom's workflow without loom's price
• anyone who wants self-hosting or full ownership of where recordings live
• windows-and-mac mixed teams, where cap's parity is stronger than loom's

when to avoid each

don't default to loom just out of habit if your team is price-sensitive or wants self-hosting — cap covers the core workflow at a fraction of the cost, with an importer that removes the usual switching cost.

don't choose cap if your organization is already deep into loom's enterprise admin and analytics tooling — migrating hundreds of seats off a working enterprise deployment isn't worth it just to save per-seat cost.

stuff their landing pages won't tell you

• loom's tightened free tier (25 videos, 5-minute cap, 720p) can surprise teams who remember loom's older, more generous free plan — budget for the paid tier if you're rolling it out broadly
• cap's self-hosted option requires you to manage your own infrastructure and updates — the convenience of cap's free tier comes with real ops responsibility if you go that route
• the loom importer handles the bulk of a migration well, but very old or heavily-commented loom videos may not carry every detail over cleanly — spot-check a few before fully switching
• cap is younger than loom, so expect a smaller third-party integration ecosystem for now, even though its core recording and sharing experience is comparable
• both tools' transcription accuracy has the usual limits with heavy jargon or strong accents — review before relying on auto-transcripts for anything important

the call

cap for almost everyone switching today — it does loom's core job for less money, with the option to self-host, and the loom importer removes most of the switching friction.

loom only if you're already deep into its enterprise tooling and the migration cost outweighs the savings — otherwise, the gap that used to justify loom's price has mostly closed.