MeetNotes
vs Fathom
Scored blind by ChatGPT: Fathom 5.7, MeetNotes 8.1. The same recording through both, with every product name removed before scoring. The full scorecard, and where Fathom won, are below.
MeetNotes vs Fathom
Winner: MeetNotes on the judge's scorecard — but Fathom got the names right, and we did not
A 31-minute online call with three speakers, in Hindi and English mixed within the same sentences. Published anonymously: no participant, company or meeting content is identified, and none was needed to score it.
Judged by: ChatGPT (OpenAI) — Fathom 5.7, MeetNotes 8.1
The judge compared the two outputs side by side as Tool A and Tool B, from the same recording, rather than by product name.
Rubric: Seven categories, listed as scored; the overall is their equal-weight average. They overlap with the seven published above but are not the same list, so they are shown as scored rather than re-labelled.
| Criterion | Fathom | MeetNotes |
|---|---|---|
| Overall (average of the seven) | 5.7 | 8.1 |
| Transcript readability and coherence | 6.0 | 8.5 |
| Speaker attribution consistency | 4.5 | 8.0 |
| Original spoken language kept | 6.0 | 9.5 |
| Summary usefulness and coverage | 7.5 | 8.0 |
| Decisions and their conditions | 6.0 | 8.0 |
| Action items, owners and timing | 5.0 | 7.0 |
| Risks, open questions and follow-ups | 5.0 | 7.5 |
- Speaker names. Fathom named all three speakers correctly, because it takes names from the call itself. MeetNotes put the wrong name on two of the three: our voice recognition matched them to voices from other meetings, and that match overrode a speaker introducing themselves by name.
- Company names. Fathom had both companies right. Our summary misheard one company's name and got wrong which side was presenting to which.
- Questions by side. Fathom listed the questions each side asked as their own section. Our minutes for this call had no such section.
- None of the three shows up in the judge's scores, which rated speaker attribution for consistency rather than for names. We found them checking both outputs against the recording ourselves — and names are the first thing a reader of the minutes would notice.
What we changed after this test: when the audio did not come from the phone's own microphone — a call, the notetaker, an uploaded file — a voice match is now only a suggestion until you confirm it, and the minutes no longer say who presented or sold to whom unless someone in the meeting says so.
One meeting is one meeting. A result here shows what happened to this recording, on this day, with these judges — not a general ranking, not an average, and not a claim about how either tool performs on your audio. That is the entire reason the protocol is published: the only comparison that decides anything for you is the one you run yourself.
Disclosure: MeetNotes itself uses AI models from more than one large AI company, including at least one whose assistant is on this panel.
Your meeting,
your judge.
Record one real meeting, run it through MeetNotes and any tool you already pay for, strip both product names off, and let an AI assistant score them blind. The protocol and the judge prompt are published in full, and we publish the rounds we lose. Send us the result — win or lose — and we credit 200 free minutes.
Test it on your own meeting
100 minutes included, no card. The only comparison that decides anything is the one you run.
