Vidyard

Name: Vidyard
Brand: Vidyard
Rating: 4.5 (1215 reviews)

Sellers win more deals with Vidyard.

Est 2010|Valuation $350M|Raised $90.8M|116 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 44K|Web traffic 885K|FTEs 195|HQ Kitchener, Ontario, CA

MarketsVideo Marketing

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Vidyard vs Loom: Loom typically offers more transparent self-serve pricing and broad adoption for internal communications, while Vidyard emphasizes sales-focused video workflows and integrations. Procurement comparisons should account for channel-dependent price differences. - Vidyard vs Hippo Video: Hippo Video publishes more explicit tier pricing with bundled features for flows and templates; Vidyard’s enterprise-focused integrations may be gated to Teams/Enterprise pricing, requiring custom quotes for full GTM integration. - Customer-driven competitor movement: at least one reviewer explicitly noted migration to a competitor for deeper analytics and a different viewer experience, indicating that analytics and viewer UX can be decisive factors for some buyers.

	Vidyard	Loom	Hippo Video
Starting Price (public)	Free available; paid tiers include Starter; Teams/Enterprise require custom pricing. Promotional pages can show per-user offers for annual commitments.	Free available; Business plan publicly listed at a per-user price with annual billing; pricing can vary by purchasing channel.	Free available; Pro and Team tiers publicly listed with per-user annual prices; enterprise options have minimum-seat pricing.
Primary Use Case	Sales and revenue teams focused on prospecting video, hosting, analytics, and GTM integrations.	General asynchronous video communication across teams; simple, broad adoption for internal collaboration.	Sales-focused video personalization with templates and packaged flows; positioned as a broader video suite.
Key Strength	Sales-oriented analytics, branded sharing pages, CTAs, and CRM workflow focus in mid/higher tiers.	Transparent self-serve pricing and straightforward end-user experience for internal communication.	Explicit tier packaging with flows and templates; a broad feature set for sales-video workflows.
Key Weakness	Some reviewers cite limited editing and integration gating to higher tiers; custom pricing can complicate procurement.	Less specialized for sales-specific engagement analytics and CRM-triggered workflows in some configurations.	Per-seat costs at team tiers can be higher; may be more than required for lightweight 1:1 recording needs.

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Vidyard vs Loom: Loom typically offers more transparent self-serve pricing and broad adoption for internal communications, while Vidyard emphasizes sales-focused video workflows and integrations. Procurement comparisons should account for channel-dependent price differences.
Vidyard vs Hippo Video: Hippo Video publishes more explicit tier pricing with bundled features for flows and templates; Vidyard’s enterprise-focused integrations may be gated to Teams/Enterprise pricing, requiring custom quotes for full GTM integration.
Customer-driven competitor movement: at least one reviewer explicitly noted migration to a competitor for deeper analytics and a different viewer experience, indicating that analytics and viewer UX can be decisive factors for some buyers.

	Vidyard	Loom	Hippo Video
Starting Price (public)	Free available; paid tiers include Starter; Teams/Enterprise require custom pricing. Promotional pages can show per-user offers for annual commitments.	Free available; Business plan publicly listed at a per-user price with annual billing; pricing can vary by purchasing channel.	Free available; Pro and Team tiers publicly listed with per-user annual prices; enterprise options have minimum-seat pricing.
Primary Use Case	Sales and revenue teams focused on prospecting video, hosting, analytics, and GTM integrations.	General asynchronous video communication across teams; simple, broad adoption for internal collaboration.	Sales-focused video personalization with templates and packaged flows; positioned as a broader video suite.
Key Strength	Sales-oriented analytics, branded sharing pages, CTAs, and CRM workflow focus in mid/higher tiers.	Transparent self-serve pricing and straightforward end-user experience for internal communication.	Explicit tier packaging with flows and templates; a broad feature set for sales-video workflows.
Key Weakness	Some reviewers cite limited editing and integration gating to higher tiers; custom pricing can complicate procurement.	Less specialized for sales-specific engagement analytics and CRM-triggered workflows in some configurations.	Per-seat costs at team tiers can be higher; may be more than required for lightweight 1:1 recording needs.