Which is better, TeamViewer or AnyDesk?

Neither is better in the abstract, and any answer that claims otherwise is either dated or selling something. Both are mature products covering the main platforms with attended and unattended access. The winner depends on your weighting: estate ownership pushes administration and audit up, ad-hoc customer support pushes attended session flow up, and cost depends entirely on how each vendor's meter lands on your operator, concurrency and device counts.

On a good network both are fast enough that the difference is not the deciding factor. Differences appear on constrained links, and they vary by route, device and version, so the only reliable answer is the one you measure yourself on the same devices and network conditions, back to back on the same day.

Are they equally secure?

Both document encryption in transit and offer multi-factor authentication on accounts. Rather than ranking brands, compare the controls an administrator can enforce: MFA on every operator, permission scoping per device group, required consent for attended sessions, complete session logs naming operator and device, log retention and export, and published hosting arrangements.

Should I only compare these two?

No. They are the two most-marketed options, not the whole market. Add at least one focused alternative, because both are broad general-purpose platforms and breadth is priced. If your requirement is quick, secure, logged access to an estate you own, a narrower tool often wins on cost and on adoption.

Alternatives · 9 min read

TeamViewer vs AnyDesk: how to run the comparison yourself

Name: 247connect
Brand: 247connect

Written for: Anyone shortlisting the two best-known remote access brands and wanting a fair, current comparison rather than an affiliate table.

Same criteria, both columns

A fair head-to-head scores both tools against one list: connection speed, access models, security controls, platform coverage and what a year costs at your real seat count.

In short

Both TeamViewer and AnyDesk are established remote access products, both cover the main platforms, and both offer attended and unattended access in some form. Because their feature lists and prices change several times a year, the useful thing is not a snapshot table but a method: weight the criteria against your own estate, take current pricing from each vendor's own page, test both on your worst network rather than your best, and score administration and audit as heavily as session feel. This page gives you that method, and is explicit about where a third option is worth adding to the comparison.

Key takeaways

Any published feature or price table in this market is stale within months; comparing well means running the method, not reading a snapshot.
Weight the criteria to your estate: owned devices push administration and audit up, ad-hoc customer support pushes attended session flow up.
Test both tools on the same poor network, on the same devices, on the same day.
Model twelve months under each vendor's own current meter at your real operator, concurrency and device counts.
Score administration (grouping, permissions, deployment, logging) as heavily as in-session experience.
Add at least one third candidate, because a two-horse comparison hides the option that fits your shape better.

Why a snapshot table is the wrong artefact

Search for these two names and you will find dozens of tables asserting which is faster, cheaper or more secure. Most were written once, are undated, and reflect packaging that has since changed. Several are published by resellers of one of the two. Treating any of them as current is how teams end up surprised by a renewal.

The durable asset is your own scoring sheet: your criteria, weighted for your estate, filled in from vendor documentation on the day you check and from a trial you ran yourself. It takes an afternoon to build and it remains valid for the decision you are making now, which no third-party table can claim.

The criteria, and how to weight them

Both products cover the same broad ground, so the decision usually turns on weighting rather than presence. Set the weights from what your desk does, before you look at either vendor.

Time to a working session, measured on your slowest realistic link. Weight high for any high-volume helpdesk.
Access models: attended for devices you do not own, unattended for the estate you do. Weight according to your actual mix.
Administration: device grouping, search, permission scoping per operator, and how the console behaves at your device count.
Security controls: encryption in transit, enforced MFA, consent behaviour, session logging, retention and export.
Platform coverage, including the specific old operating system versions in your estate.
Deployment and updates: silent install at scale, and how agent updates are handled.
Hosting and data residency, weighted high in regulated sectors and for GDPR-conscious organisations.
Licensing meter and twelve-month cost at your real numbers, including add-ons you would enable.
Support: response expectations, and whether you can reach a human when a session fails during an incident.

Testing session quality fairly

Session feel is the criterion people argue about and the one most often tested badly. A fair test controls the variables: the same two devices, the same network conditions, the same tasks, run back to back on the same day, ideally by two technicians who swap tools halfway so preference does not masquerade as measurement.

Run the test on a deliberately constrained link, because that is where products differ. Measure time from click to usable desktop. Do real work: type in a document, drag windows, open a file manager, transfer a file each way, watch how the image degrades as bandwidth tightens. Then repeat once on a good connection to confirm both are fine there, which they almost certainly will be.

Record the numbers. A fortnight later, memory reliably favours whichever tool the technician used last.

Comparing cost without guessing

Take current pricing from each vendor's own page on the day you model it, then apply your figures rather than the vendor's example. The variables that move the total are the number of people needing console access, the number of simultaneous sessions at your busiest hour, the number of devices needing permanent agents, and the tier at which the capabilities you actually need become available.

Model two scenarios: today, and your expected size in two years. Also note the commercial terms that are not the price, since they frequently decide satisfaction: contract length, whether it renews automatically, notice period for cancellation, what happens to your session logs when a subscription ends, and how mid-term seat changes are handled.

Add a third candidate

A head-to-head between the two best-known brands is a comparison of the two most-marketed options, not of the market. Both are broad general-purpose products, and breadth is priced. If your requirement is narrower, quick secure access to an estate you own, handled by several occasional operators, a focused tool commonly wins on both cost and adoption.

So run three columns, not two. If the third loses on your weighted sheet, you have lost an hour and gained confidence in the winner. If it wins, you have avoided paying for platform you were never going to configure.

A fair two-week comparison

1. Build the weighted sheet first
Your criteria, your weights, agreed before any vendor material is read. Add a third candidate column.
2. Fill it from primary sources
Each vendor's own documentation and pricing page, dated. Discard undated third-party tables.
3. Trial on identical conditions
Same devices, same constrained network, same tasks, run back to back, technicians swapping tools halfway.
4. Exercise administration, not just sessions
Deploy silently, group devices, scope an operator to one group, then export the session log and read it.
5. Model the money twice
Twelve months at today's size and at your expected size in two years, plus contract length, notice period and log retention on exit.

Common mistakes

Relying on an undated comparison table, often published by a reseller of one of the products.
Testing on a good network, where nothing distinguishes the candidates.
Letting session feel outweigh administration and audit for an estate you own.
Comparing only two products because they are the two you have heard of.
Ignoring contract terms: auto-renewal, notice periods and what happens to logs when you leave.
Modelling cost at today's headcount only, then being surprised at the next renewal.

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, TeamViewer or AnyDesk?: Neither is better in the abstract, and any answer that claims otherwise is either dated or selling something. Both are mature products covering the main platforms with attended and unattended access. The winner depends on your weighting: estate ownership pushes administration and audit up, ad-hoc customer support pushes attended session flow up, and cost depends entirely on how each vendor's meter lands on your operator, concurrency and device counts.
Which is faster?: On a good network both are fast enough that the difference is not the deciding factor. Differences appear on constrained links, and they vary by route, device and version, so the only reliable answer is the one you measure yourself on the same devices and network conditions, back to back on the same day.
Are they equally secure?: Both document encryption in transit and offer multi-factor authentication on accounts. Rather than ranking brands, compare the controls an administrator can enforce: MFA on every operator, permission scoping per device group, required consent for attended sessions, complete session logs naming operator and device, log retention and export, and published hosting arrangements.
Should I only compare these two?: No. They are the two most-marketed options, not the whole market. Add at least one focused alternative, because both are broad general-purpose platforms and breadth is priced. If your requirement is quick, secure, logged access to an estate you own, a narrower tool often wins on cost and on adoption.

Why teams choose 247connect

A third column worth filling in
247connect is scoped to fast managed and on-demand access rather than to breadth, which usually shows up in both the cost model and daily adoption.
About eight seconds to a managed session
Measure it against your other two candidates on the same constrained link during the trial.
Unlimited operators, fixed price
Removes the seat maths from the comparison entirely, which is where per-operator models hurt growing teams.
Zero-trust, AES-256 in transit
Outbound-only agents, MFA on operator accounts, scoped permissions and named-operator session logs you can export.
UK, US and German hosting
Data residency you can point at in a DPIA or a supplier questionnaire.

Where 247connect fits: as the third column in that comparison. It is not the broadest platform of the three and does not pretend to be, with no deep patch automation or integrated billing. What it offers is fast, secure, fixed-price remote access with unlimited operators and managed plus on-demand sessions, and a 14-day trial that is long enough to run the two-week method on this page properly.

Start a 14-day free trial See the feature list