Evidence · first-party tested/Best AI Meeting Notetakers for Accurate Transcripts, Summaries, and Action Items
The transcript was near-clean: the tool captured nearly all names, technical jargon, and numbers correctly, with no significant misheard terms or hallucinations observed in the tested meeting.
What was measured
Transcription Accuracy
Word accuracy on the shared call, especially names, tools, numbers, and jargon.
decisive for this rankingtransformation
If the transcript gets names, numbers, and jargon wrong, the note-taker has failed at the core job of capturing the call accurately. (3 of 3 judges)
What was given, what came back
Test input: AI Demos Daily Standup — 31 July 2026 · image · group: ai-meeting-notetaker
Input — what we sent
AI Demos Daily Standup — 31 July 2026
A real 25-minute technical engineering daily standup with 14 attendees and about 10 active speakers, used as the single parallel-capture meeting for evaluating AI meeting notetakers on transcription, diarization, summaries, action items, search/chat, and collaboration features.
Why this input is hard
- · Transcription accuracy for real names, tool names, numbers, and technical jargon
- · Speaker diarization across multiple active speakers
- · Robustness to overlapping speech, crosstalk, and rapid turn-taking
- · Join reliability for bot-based and botless capture
- · Summary quality on identical source material
- · Action-item extraction with correct owners and commitments
- · Topic segmentation of standup updates
- · Search and chat grounded in the meeting content
- · Sharing, API, MCP, integrations, plan limits, languages, and privacy feature coverage
Output — unretouched
Also checked on this input — same tool, 9 other criteria
Action-Item Extraction◐ MixedAction-item extraction was mostly correct, with real commitments and proper owner assignment for most items, but one real action item was misplaced from Mahreen to Anshika; the report states a 95%+ capture rate.Chat with Notes / Ask Questions✓ WorkedAsk Fellow returned grounded answers to natural-language questions against the meeting notes, and the tested query produced a cited response rather than an unsupported hallucination.Editability◐ MixedSummary and action items are editable inline before sharing, but the transcript itself is locked for audit-trail purposes, so editing is only partial.Join Method & Reliability✓ WorkedThe bot auto-joined via Google Calendar integration and stayed connected for the full meeting capture without drops or disconnections, including the late closing portion of the call.Search Across Notes✓ WorkedTranscript search works with exact timestamp retrieval for matching terms, letting users jump to precise moments within the meeting; the report notes cross-meeting search was untested.Sharing Without Registration✓ WorkedShared recap links can be opened by anyone with the link without creating a Fellow account, and the share modal also offers optional password protection for viewers outside the workspace.Speaker Diarization✓ WorkedThe transcript attributed speaker turns correctly across the standup, with all ~10 speakers labeled by name and no attribution errors or generic labels reported.Summary Quality✓ WorkedThe meeting recap was reported as clearly structured and complete, with the key decisions and discussion points preserved and nothing important dropped.Topic Segmentation✓ WorkedThe tool broke the standup into logical topic sections with clear headers and separated discussion points, rather than leaving the meeting as one undifferentiated blob.
Provenance
- Observation
- d4b52ad2-b536-4580-99fa-644f4b772a93
- Evidence run
- ace58582-3d1e-48ee-996c-9b3cd03f27a2
- Study
- AI Meeting Notetakers — Capture Accurate Transcripts, Summaries & Action Items From Live Calls
- Research task
- 86baxegnv
- Tested at
- not recorded
- Source
- first-party
- Evidence state
- verified
- Proof shown
- input + output shown
- Cost / latency
- not captured
- Repeat run
- not captured
- Tester
- not captured
The last three rows are honest blanks, not placeholders — our capture has no field for them yet.
Query this
get_evidence({
tool: "fellow",
scenario: "ai-meeting-notetaker"
})MCP · mcp.aidemos.com/api/mcp
Free with attribution.
Same input, same check — 7 other tools
measured on Transcription Accuracy
Fathom◐ MixedFathom's transcript mostly preserves the meeting's names and technical content, but the report records one confirmed name-level error: "Mahreen" was rendered as "Meryl."Fireflies.ai✓ WorkedGenerated a timestamped transcript view, and the report says the full transcript was very accurate: nearly all names, tools, jargon, and numbers were captured correctly with no significant misheard terms or hallucinations.Granola✗ FailedOn this 25-minute, multi-speaker standup, Granola’s transcript quality is unreliable: the published excerpt shows garbled phrasing and mistranscribed wording, and the report says the mishearing pattern recurs across early, middle, and late sections rather than being isolated to one moment.HappyScribe◐ MixedOn this ~25-minute multi-speaker standup, HappyScribe captured the vast majority of names, tools, and jargon correctly, and the report records only 1–2 misheard words.MeetGeek✓ WorkedIt transcribes a normal ~25-minute, ~10-active-speaker engineering standup mostly accurately, with only minor proper-noun/term drift noted in the report; one example given is "Madin" being misheard for "Mahreen".Notta✓ WorkedNotta’s transcript capture was accurate on the evaluated standup: the report says it correctly captured names, tool names, numbers, and engineering jargon with no significant word-level errors, silent hallucinations, or misheard terms.Otter.ai✓ WorkedOtter generated a full transcript for the standup and, per the report, captured names, tool names, jargon, and numbers correctly with minimal errors, making the transcript reliable for reference.
This evidence is published in
Real inputs and real outputs, no retouching · every cell queryable via API & MCP · aidemos.com