Loading content…
1. Listing metadata
Field-level data| Feeds | Ecamm | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Feeds | Ecamm | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Feeds | Ecamm |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 5.0 ★ | — |
| Total reviews | 1 | 0 |
| Free plan | — | — |
Based on the data on this page, Feeds is the stronger choice for most Zoom App Marketplace teams — 5.0★ vs Ecamm's 0.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage teams who need fast install and low risk should default to Feeds; mid-market and enterprise teams with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Ecamm's 0-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Feeds'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: Feeds audit • Ecamm audit
AppRanks cannot separate these two on rating, because neither publishes one. Feeds does carry the larger published review base (1 vs 0). Read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Zoom App Marketplace. Feeds has the deeper published review base (1 vs 0), 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.
Feeds typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (1 reviews). Ecamm typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (0 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. Feeds and Ecamm 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 Ecamm" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.