Transcriba vs tl;dv
Different approaches: tl;dv joins the meeting to record audio and video; Transcriba transcribes without taking part in the call.
Feature-by-feature comparison
| Transcriba | tl;dv | |
|---|---|---|
| Transcribes without a bot in the call | ||
| Records meeting video | ||
| Works without admitting a guest | Depends | |
| Google Meet and Microsoft Teams | ||
| Zoom | On the roadmap | |
| History search on the free plan | Limited | |
| Video clips by passage |
Comparison based on publicly available competitor information as of 01/09/2026. Got something wrong? Let us know.
Two different philosophies
tl;dv joins your meeting as a participant, records audio and video, and then gives you the full recording with a transcript, a summary, and the ability to cut clips. It’s strong for people who work with the video — sales reviewing calls, teams training with real passages.
Transcriba doesn’t join the call. It transcribes the meeting, generates the summary and action items, and lets you chat with the text. You keep the written record, not the video.
When Transcriba makes more sense
Client meetings and sensitive conversations. A recording bot on the first call with a prospect, or in a consultation, or in a feedback 1:1, weighs on the room. Transcriba doesn’t show up to anyone in the call.
Cost. R$39/mo on Copilot. tl;dv bills in dollars.
Search on the free plan. In Transcriba, searching your whole history works on any plan.
When tl;dv makes more sense
If you need the video — sales-call clips, interview review, a library of passages to train the team — Transcriba doesn’t deliver that. And tl;dv already supports Zoom, which Transcriba doesn’t yet.