The Good Tech Companies - Notta vs Otter AI: Which AI Transcription Tool is the Best?

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

This story was originally published on HackerNoon at: https://hackernoon.com/notta-vs-otter-ai-which-ai-transcription-tool-is-the-best. We tested Otter AI vs Notta to find which AI transcription tool is the best (and the results surprised us) Check more stories related to machine-learning at: https://hackernoon.com/c/machine-learning. You can also check exclusive content about #ai, #best-ai-note-taking-apps, #ai-note-taking, #otterai, #ai-transcribing, #notta-vs-otter-ai, #otter-ai-alternatives, #good-company, and more. This story was written by: @endorsely. Learn more about this writer by checking @endorsely's about page, and for more stories, please visit hackernoon.com. Notta transcribes and summarizes conversations in real-time. Otter is an excel-based transcription tool for teams working primarily in English. Notta has superior accuracy, more competitive pricing, and impressive multi-language translation. Otters boasts a 98% accuracy rate that holds up in real world testing.

This audio is presented by Hacker Noon, where anyone can learn anything about any technology. Nada vs Otter AI. Which AI transcription tool is the best, by Endorsly? If, like me, you're not a natural multitasker, you know the struggle of trying toadake meeting notes while actively participating in a discussion. You either get so engrossed in the conversation that you forget to take notes, or you focus so hurt on your notes that you miss what everyone's actually saying? Spoiler alert! I've found that NADA is the best AI transcription tool in most cases, with superior accuracy, more competitive pricing, and impressive multi-language translation. Meeting notes shouldn't be stressful. Between managing packed calendars, juggling multiple projects, and trying to extract actionable

insights from hours of discussions, the traditional approach of manual note-taking feels increasingly outdated and inefficient. This struggle often leads to missed action items, forgotten decisions, and the dreaded, wait, what did we agree on again? Follow-up emails. That's where AI transcription tools come in to save the day, with automated note-taking, AI summaries, and real-time transcription to help you capture every important detail while giving the conversation your full attention.

In this no-nonsense comparison of Nada vs. Otter, I'll walk you through exactly how these two popular AI meeting assistants stack up against each other. Having spent countless hours testing both platforms across dozens of meetings and recordings, I'll help you determine which one deserves a place in your productivity toolkit. Overview. NADA vs. Otter at a glance. Before diving into the nitty-gritty details, let's get a quick overview of the Setwo AI transcription powerhouses. NADA is a comprehensive AI meeting assistant that automatically transcribes and summarizes conversations in real-time. With over a million users across 119 countries, it stands out for its extensive language capabilities, high accuracy rates, and robust integration options.

Otter, arguably the more recognizable name in the space, has been a pioneer E9 note-taking since its launch. Popular among business professionals, journalists, and students, Otter has built its reputation on reliable transcription and collaborative features. Here's how they compare at a high-level feature not a Otter best for global teams and multilingual users who need diverse language support English-focused teams who prioritize collaborative node editing standout feature 58 transcription languages and 42 translation languages with bilingual capabilities and real-time transcription conversation intelligence with robust search of meeting content rating 4.

7 fifths based on user reviews 4. 5 fifths based on user reviews Free plan 120 minutes per month, 3 minute limit per recording, 300 minutes per month, 30 minuteminute limit per recording Starting price $13.49 per month Pro, $16.99 per month Pro, mobile app yes iOS and Android Limited mobile web interface While both tools aim to solve similar problems, Nata is a global solution with impressive language capabilities and live transcription, while Otter excels as a collaborative tool for teams working primarily in English. Core transcription capabilities When it comes to AI transcription tools, accuracy is king.

After all, what good is an automated note-taker if it transcribes quarterly revenue projections as, court early revenge projections? True story, but not with either of these tools, thankfully. Transcription Accuracy Nada boasts a 98, 86% accuracy rate that mostly holds up in real world testing, as long as the audio is decent quality. In my experience, it handles technical jargon impressively well, correctly capturing terms like DeepSeek R1 API, without breaking a sweat. It also does an impressive job with understanding heavy accents, which is helpful when you're

communicating across borders. N-Oddr doesn't publicly state its accuracy percentage, but my tests suggest it falls in the 88-94% range. After running identical audio segments through both tools, I found Nada consistently produced cleaner transcripts with fewer errors, particularly for longer sessions. I have noticed that both tools have problems with proper nouns, like company names, and Nada doesn't recognize its own name, instead transcribing Nada as Nada. Language support this is where Nada truly shines.

With support for 58 transcription language San translation capabilities for 42 languages, NADA makes Otter look like that friend who proudly announces their bilingual, because they remember, Dondi Stila Biblioteca, from high school Spanish. NADA's bilingual transcription in 11 language pairs is a game changer for international teams. Imagine having a Japanese speaker and an English speaker in the same meeting, with NADA providing real-time translation between them. NADA primarily focuses on English, with limited support for Spanish and French. If your team operates globally, this limitation could be a dealbreaker.

Real-time performance and file transcription both tools can transcribe a 5-minute recording in about 30 seconds, just what you'd expect from an AI transcription tool. But only Nada offers live transcription that lets you see what people are saying more or less in real time, and scroll back through the transcription if you zoned out and missed something important. The lag on this feature is minimal, usually 1-2 seconds behind the audio input. One notable limitation – Otter's Pro plan restricts users to importing just 10 files per month. If you're constantly working with recordings, that's like having a gym membership that

only lets you use the equipment 10 times a month – not exactly ideal. If you only need to transcribe recordings, there isn't much between Nota and Otter on this front. But Nota's real-time transcription is arguably one of its more impressive features, so I recommend you give it a go. AI features and intelligence. These days, transcription tools aren't just about turning speech to text. They're about extracting meaning from conversations.

Both platforms offer impressive AI capabilities, though with different strengths. AI summaries and analysis NADA's AI notes feature automatically generates concise summaries of your meetings. What sets NADA apart is its template library for different meeting types, each optimized to extract the most relevant information for that context. After a 90-minute product planning meeting that felt longer than the director's kit of Lord of the Rings, NADA's summary highlighted all our key decisions about feature priorities and timeline adjustments in a neat two-paragraph summary. Pure magic, Otter

offers similar functionality, with perhaps a slight edge in topic organization. It's particularly good at segmenting longer discussions into thematic blocks. Translation capabilities here's where Nada really distinguishes itself. With real-time translation across 42 languages, it bridges language barriers effortlessly. I've used this feature during international partner calls, and it's remarkably powerful. During one session with a Japanese partner, NADA translated the entire conversation in real-time and delivered bilingual notes, making me look like an international business genius instead of someone who can barely order sushi correctly. Otter has very limited translation capabilities and really doesn't compare on this front. For globally distributed teams,

Notta's translation features alone could justify choosing it over Otter. It's like having an interpreter who never needs bathroom breaks or gets tired of translating technical jargon. Pricing in value. Let's talk money, specifically, how much of yours will go toward never having Totalk Emmanuel meeting notes again. Free plan Comperies Onbeth platforms offer free tiers for casual users. NADA's free plan includes 120 minutes of transcription per month, 3-minute limit per conversation. AI summaries, speaker identification, integration with major meeting platforms. Otter's free plan includes 300 minutes of transcription

per month. 30-minute limit per conversation. Basic summary, limited sharing options. The per conversation limit is the key difference. Otter's 30-minute allowance is actually useful for real meetings, while Nada's 3-minute allowance is actually useful for real meetings, while Nada's 3-minute restriction is barely enough time for everyone to introduce themselves and complain that Bob from accounting is late again. Because of this, Nada's free plan is really only useful for testing the platform out to see if it's worth upgrading, unless you intend to just record lots of short voice memos. Paid Plansnada's pricing structure is Pro, $13.49 per month for 1,800 minutes total, 90 minutes per conversation. Business

$27.99 per month per seat for unlimited minutes, 5 hours per conversation. Otter's paid options include Pro, $16.99 per month for 1200 minutes 90 minutes per conversation business $30 per month per user for 6000 team minutes looking at the pro plans nada offers better value with more transcription minutes 1800 vs 1200 at a lower price point $13.49 vs $16.99. For teams, NADA's unlimited minutes on the business plan could be a budget saver for organizations where people seemingly spend their entire lives in Zoom calls. NADA's translation feature is an optional add-on, costing $10 per month for monolingual and $15 per month for bilingual translation. Both Otter and Nata offer discounts of 30-50% on

their monthly pricing if you take an annual plan, so it's worth considering this if you're planning to use the tool long-term. End-user experience and interface a powerful tool is only as good as its usability. Ferrari performance with AUSR interface designed by toddlers isn't going to help anyone. So how do Nada and Otter compare in this regard? Mobile experience Nada offers dedicated mobile apps for both iOS and Android, providing a fully featured experience on the go. I've used Nada's mobile app during impromptu meetings when I didn't have my laptop and it worked seamlessly, a lifesaver for capturing those quick chats that somehow

turn into major strategy discussions. Otter, surprisingly, doesn't offer dedicated mobile apps. You can access it through a mobile browser, but the experience feels clunky when you're used top-reposed built apps. Desktop interface and meeting integration both platforms offer clean, well-designed web interfaces. Nata makes it easy to get started with four different input options. The Transcript view is particularly well designed, with an audio playback interface that synchronizes perfectly with the text. Otter excels in search functionality, allowing you to quickly find

specific content across all your transcripts. Both make it straightforward to transcribe online meetings, though I've found Nata's up to be more reliable across different meeting platforms, particularly for Microsoft Teams, which, as we all know, can be finicky enough on its own without adding third party tools to the mix. Meeting integration and collaboration platform compatibility and calendar integration, both tools integrate with major video conferencing platforms, zoom, Google meet, Microsoft teams, and WebEx for NADA, with straightforward setup processes.

NADA's newer scheduling capability lets you create custom scheduling links to share with others, automatically joining these scheduled meetings. For those OFUs who schedule dozen of meetings weekly, this feature is like having a personal assistant who never complains about your coffee order. Sharing and collaboration for team environments, both tools offer solid collaboration features.

NADA allows sharing via email or shareable links with various permission levels. You can organize shared transcripts into projects or folders for easy management. Otter has built its reputation partly on its collaborative capabilities, with robust sharing options, commenting features, and simultaneous editing. Who should choose NADA? Based on its strengths, NADA is ideal for international teams. If your organization spans multiple countries and languages, NADA's multilingual capabilities make it the obvious choice. I've seen teams transform from communication chaos to streamlined efficiency with this tool.

Mobile Professionals With dedicated apps, NADA is perfect for on-the-go professionals. Sales reps, journalists, and consultants who are constantly moving between meetings will appreciate this flexibility. Detail-oriented users When precision matters, like in legal discussions or technical meetings, NADA's higher accuracy rate, 98.86%, makes it the better choice. Budget-conscious organizations.

More minutes at a lower price point means better value, especially for meeting heavy teams. NADA shines in scenarios like product teams working with international partners, busy executives who need reliable meeting records, and anyone who finds themselves easily distracted during meetings and would appreciate a live transcript. Click here to try Nota for free who should choose Otter. Otter remains excellent for English-focused teams. If you operate primarily in English, Otter's specialized English transcription may be sufficient.

Collaborative teams. For groups that need to refine and annotate meeting notes together, Otter's real-time collaboration features are hard to beat. Free tier testers. Asterisk with a 30 minute limit per recording on the free plan, versus Nada's 3 minute limit, Otter lets you test with substantial recordings before paying. N. Other alternatives. While Nada and Otter dominate much of the conversation, a few other options are worth considering Rev. Combine's AI, $0.25 per minute, and human transcription, $1.99 per minute. For legal proceedings or medical documentation where mistakes aren't an option, Rev's human verification provides peace of mind. Descript. Beyond transcription, Descript lets you edit

audio by editing text, delete words in the transcript, and they're removed from the audio too. It's a dream for podcast producers and video editors willing to pay $24 per month for 10 transcription hours. Fathom. Offers an impressive free tier for individuals with unlimited recordings and AI features for the first five recordings each month. It supports 28 languages and integrates well with CRMs. The interface isn't as polished as Nata or Otter, but free is a very compelling price point for budget-conscious users. The final verdict. After thorough testing, I've found that Nata emerges as the stronger overall choice for most users in 2025. Its superior accuracy,

extensive language support, mobile apps, and better pricing combine to create a more versatile tool for today's diverse workplace. NADA particularly shines with, 1. Multilingual excellence. Support for 58 transcription languages makes it the only viable option for global teams. 2. Better mobile experience. Dedicated apps provide flexibility that Otter's browser-based experience can't match. 3. Better value. More transcription minutes at a lower price point saves both time and money. 4. Higher accuracy. A 98. 86% accuracy rate means less time fixing transcription errors and more time acting on insights. Otter remains excellent for English-focused teams with collaborative note-taking needs.

Its search capabilities and real-time collaboration features are still best in class. Of course, there are many similar products on the market, such as Fireflies, TL, DV, and Fathom. However, in terms of AI functionality integration, these other products still have some way to go. As for whether Nada or Otter will emerge victorious in the AI meeting agent space, we'll have to wait and see how they keep developing their products in this fast-paced environment. Whichever tool you choose, AI-powered transcription will dramatically improve your meeting experience.

The days of frantically scribbling notes while trying to appear engaged are, thankfully, behind us, unless you're one of those people who doodles regardless, in which case, carry on with your meeting margin art. We'll have our coping mechanisms. FAQs. Is NADA better than Otter? For most users, NADA offers advantages including higher transcription accuracy, 98.86%, support for 58 languages, real-time translation, and better pricing. However, Otter excels in collaborative features and content discovery, making it potentially better for English-focused teams needing collaborative note-taking.

How accurate is NADA compared to Otter? NADA advertises 98.86% accuracy, which testing confirms for clear audio. Otter doesn't publicly state its accuracy, but tests suggest it falls in the 88-94% range. In direct comparisons, NADA consistently produces cleaner transcripts with fewer errors, especially for technical terminology. Can NADA and Otter translate meetings in real-time? NADA offers robust real-time translation across 42 languages, including bilingual transcription in 11 language pairs. This allows team members speaking different languages to communicate effectively in meetings.

Otter has limited translation capabilities, mostly for after-the-fact translation rather than real-time support. Does NADA have a mobile app? Yes, NADA offers dedicated mobile apps for both iOS and Android, providing a full-featured mobile experience. These apps let you record conversations, access transcripts, and join meetings from your phone. NADA doesn't offer dedicated mobile apps and must be accessed through a mobile browser. Which is more affordable, Nota OR Otter? Nota offers better value for most users. Its Pro plan costs $13.49 per month for 1800 transcription minutes, while Otter's Pro

plan costs $16.99 per month for 1200 minutes. Nota also offers unlimited minutes on its business plan, $27.99, month per seat, making it cost-effective for meeting heavy organizations. Can NADA and Otter transcribe recorded audio files? Yes, both can transcribe pre-recorded files. NADA supports more formats, WAV, MP3, MP4, WMV, WMA, WebM, and processes them faster. A 5-minute recording takes about 30 seconds to transcribe. Otter limits pro users to importing just 10 files per month, which may be restrictive

for heavy users. Info This story was authored under Hacker Noon's Business Blogging program. Thank you for listening to this Hacker Noon story, read by Artificial Intelligence. Visit hackernoon.com to read, write, learn and publish.