Decision Support · Side-by-side

Notta vs Shadow 2.0. Side by side.

Compare pricing, strengths, and use cases so it is easier to pick the right fit.

Browse alternatives Browse workflows

Change tools

Comparison Ready

Notta

Best overall

Shadow 2.0

Notta wins for anyone who needs a cross-platform, bot-visible transcription tool with deep integrations and a free tier that works on mobile. Shadow 2.0 is the better choice if you're a macOS user who values privacy and an invisible meeting assistant. The single biggest difference: Shadow processes everything locally and never appears as a participant, while Notta relies on cloud processing and a visible bot.

Notta

Free tier available, Pro from $8.17/mo #543 of 3,826 Web

Shadow 2.0

Free tier available Web

Scores at a glance

NottaShadow 2.0Practical Versatility

Onboarding Ease

Ecosystem Fit

Market Value

Choose Notta if

You record interviews, lectures, or meetings on your phone and need accurate transcripts in many languages
You want a bot that automatically joins your calendar meetings so you never forget to record
You need to export transcripts to Word, PDF, or Excel for sharing with clients or colleagues
You work on Windows, Linux, or a mix of devices and need a consistent tool across all of them

Choose Shadow 2.0 if

You're a Mac user who handles sensitive information (legal, medical, HR) and can't risk audio leaving your device
You hate the idea of a visible bot in meetings and want something completely invisible
You need screen recording synced with audio to review exactly what was shown during a discussion
You want automated follow-up emails drafted for you right after each meeting

Key differences

Notta works on phones, tablets, and all computers; Shadow 2.0 is macOS-only
Shadow 2.0 processes everything locally for privacy; Notta uses the cloud
Notta's bot appears as a participant; Shadow 2.0 is completely invisible
Notta has a free tier but with very limited minutes; Shadow 2.0's free tier gives 10 full meetings
Notta integrates directly with Google Calendar, Outlook, Notion, and Slack; Shadow 2.0 relies on Zapier for most connections
Notta supports 100+ languages for transcription; Shadow 2.0 also supports ~100 languages but with less tested accuracy

Facts side by side

	Notta	Shadow 2.0
Free plan
Mobile app
API access

Notta: strengths & weaknesses

Works on any device – phone, tablet, computer, or browser extension
Transcribes over 100 languages with high accuracy
Auto-joins meetings from your calendar without you remembering to start it
Exports to Word, PDF, Excel, subtitles, and more
Free plan gives very few minutes – you'll hit the limit fast
The bot appears as a participant, which can feel awkward in small meetings
Speaker identification can get confused in rooms with echo or background noise
Advanced AI summaries are locked behind the pricier Business plan

Shadow 2.0: strengths & weaknesses

No one in the meeting knows it's there – no bot, no awkwardness
All audio stays on your Mac by default – great for confidential conversations
Captures both audio and screen with timestamps, so you can see what was on screen when something was said
Generates draft follow-up emails automatically after the meeting ends
Only works on macOS – no Windows, no phone app, no web version
Free tier limits you to 10 meetings per month
Few native integrations – you'll need Zapier to connect to most other tools
Can misidentify speakers if the room is noisy or people talk over each other

Common questions

Is Notta better than Shadow 2.0 for recording Zoom meetings?

Notta is better if you want automatic calendar-based joining and don't mind a visible bot. Shadow 2.0 is better if you want to record without anyone knowing, but it only works on Mac.

Can I use Shadow 2.0 on my iPhone or Android?

No. Shadow 2.0 is macOS-only. If you need mobile transcription, choose Notta – it has a robust mobile app for recording and editing.

Which tool is more private?

Shadow 2.0 is far more private. It processes and stores audio locally on your Mac by default. Notta sends audio to its cloud servers for transcription.

Do I need to pay to get useful features from either tool?

Yes, for serious use. Notta's free plan gives very few minutes. Shadow 2.0's free tier gives 10 meetings per month, which is more generous but still limited. Both are worth the paid tier if they fit your needs.

Which tool is easier to set up for a non-technical person?

Notta is easier because it has a guided 10-step onboarding, a Chrome extension, and works on any device. Shadow 2.0 requires a Mac and has less hand-holding during setup.

Can either tool transcribe languages other than English?

Both support around 100 languages, but Notta has a stronger reputation for accuracy in non-English languages based on user reviews.

Notta wins for versatility and cross-platform use; Shadow 2.0 wins for privacy and invisibility on Mac.

If you use a mix of devices or need to record on your phone, go with Notta – it's more versatile and easier to start. If you're a Mac user who values privacy above all and wants an invisible assistant, Shadow 2.0 is a fantastic choice. Both have free tiers, so try them out and see which feels right for your daily routine.

Visit Notta Visit Shadow 2.0

Detail pages: Notta · Shadow 2.0

Notta

Shadow 2.0

Free plan

Mobile app

API access