How SendRec Compares to Loom, Zight, and Cap
Why comparison pages matter
When teams evaluate async video tools, the default is usually Loom. It is the market leader, the name people know, and the one most likely to already be in your organization. But “everyone uses it” is not an evaluation. It is inertia.
We built detailed comparison pages for SendRec against three tools that cover the spectrum: Loom (the market leader), Zight (formerly CloudApp, a mid-market alternative), and Cap (the closest open-source competitor). Each page is a side-by-side breakdown of data hosting, features, pricing, and deployment — not marketing copy, but verifiable facts.
SendRec vs Loom
Loom is owned by Atlassian (acquired for $975M in November 2023). It is a polished product with a large feature set. Here is where the two diverge:
Data hosting. Loom stores all data on AWS in the United States. There is no EU data residency option. SendRec lets you host on any EU server or use our managed platform (Hetzner, Helsinki).
Source code. Loom is closed-source. You cannot inspect how it handles your video data, what telemetry it sends, or how it processes recordings. SendRec is fully open source under AGPLv3 — the entire codebase is on GitHub.
AI pricing. Loom’s AI features — summaries, chapters, filler word removal, transcript editing — require the Business + AI plan at $20 per user per month. SendRec includes all AI features on every plan, including the free tier and self-hosted deployments. You can even bring your own AI model (OpenAI, Mistral, Ollama).
Pricing. Loom charges $15–20 per user per month. SendRec Pro is €8/month flat, not per seat. Self-hosting is free.
SendRec vs Zight
Zight, formerly CloudApp, rebranded in April 2023. It focuses on screenshots and quick screen recordings rather than long-form async video.
Disappearing uploads. Zight’s free tier only keeps your last 50 uploads. Older recordings become inaccessible — they do not tell you this upfront. SendRec’s free tier gives you 25 videos per month with no content expiry.
Feature depth. Zight is strong on screenshots and GIFs but lighter on video-specific features. SendRec includes timestamped comments, emoji reactions, AI chapters, completion funnel analytics, embeddable player, email gates, CTA buttons, and custom CSS — features that Zight either does not offer or locks behind Team/Enterprise plans.
AI as an add-on. Zight’s AI transcription and summaries are add-on purchases on top of the base price. SendRec includes them on all plans.
SendRec vs Cap
Cap is the most interesting comparison because it is also open source (AGPLv3 + MIT dual license, 17,000+ GitHub stars). Both projects aim to be the open-source alternative to Loom. The differences are in approach:
Architecture. Cap is a desktop application built with Tauri, SolidStart, Next.js, Rust, MySQL, and Turborepo — a sophisticated multi-language stack. SendRec is a single Go binary that serves the API, the React SPA, and server-rendered watch pages. One binary, PostgreSQL, S3. Easier to deploy, easier to maintain.
Recording method. Cap requires installing a desktop app (macOS and Windows only — no native Linux app). SendRec works entirely in the browser. No installation, no platform restrictions.
Commercial use. Cap’s free tier explicitly prohibits commercial use. You need at least the Desktop License ($29/year or $58 lifetime) to use it for work. SendRec’s free tier has no commercial use restriction.
EU presence. Cap is a US company based in New York. SendRec is EU-native — our managed platform runs on European infrastructure, and the project is built with EU data sovereignty as a core requirement, not an afterthought.
Self-hosting. Both support self-hosting via Docker Compose. Cap explicitly states they do not offer support for self-hosted deployments (Enterprise plan required for managed self-hosting). SendRec provides documentation for self-hosted setups.
What we are not claiming
These comparison pages state facts, not opinions disguised as facts. We are not claiming SendRec is better at everything — it is not. Loom has a more polished desktop recording experience. Zight has screenshot and GIF features we do not offer. Cap has a studio editing mode with zoom effects and custom backgrounds.
What we are saying is that if EU data sovereignty, open source transparency, or self-hosting matter to you, the trade-offs look different than the default “just use Loom” recommendation suggests.
Try it yourself
The comparison pages are at sendrec.eu/alternatives. Each one has a feature-by-feature grid, pricing breakdown, and links to try SendRec or view the source code.
If you find something inaccurate in the comparisons, open an issue — we want these pages to be factual, not promotional.