Loading content…
1. Listing metadata
Field-level data| Rooster | AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Rooster | AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
Live AI-generated meeting notes, transcription, engagement scores, talk time, and coaching tips from Read AI.
| Metric | Rooster | AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 5.0 ★ | 2.1 ★ |
| Total reviews | 2 | ★ 126 |
| Free plan | — | — |
Based on the data on this page, Rooster is the stronger choice for most Zoom App Marketplace teams — 5.0★ vs AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI's 2.1★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI has the larger user base (126 reviews vs 2), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Rooster's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage teams who need fast install and low risk should default to Rooster; mid-market and enterprise teams with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI's 126-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Rooster's broader-but-shallower coverage.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Zoom App Marketplace listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: Rooster audit • AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI audit
| Keyword | Rooster | AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI |
|---|---|---|
| summaries | Not ranked | #1 |
| meeting | Not ranked | #1 |
No tracked changes.
Rooster has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 2 reviews) compared to AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI (2.1★ from 126 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
Rooster holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 2.1★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Zoom App Marketplace. AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI has the deeper published review base (126 vs 2), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Rooster typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (2 reviews). AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (126 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. Rooster and AI-generated meeting summaries by Read AI both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Rooster" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.