coExploro
Teardowns

Product teardown

Loom product teardown

By coExploro · Captured

A curated sample showing what coExploro observes about public homepages, pricing pages, feature pages, and UX signals.

Illustrative public sample. coExploro is not affiliated with Loom.

Sample output

Overall score 87/100

PM 91

UX 78

Summary Card + findings

Category
Async video messaging
Captured
Published
Updated
Visit product

Summary Card

The shareable readout before the full canvas.

This public version uses the same compact card pattern as private teardowns: one score, four persona signals, and the strongest findings compressed into a card a product team can forward.

Read the methodology

Overall score

87/100

Confidence

mid

PM

91/100

UX

78/100

coExploro

Loom

teardown · captured 2026-08-10

Overall score · good
87
mid confidence
PM
91
MKT
91
UX
78
DSG
87

Top findings

  • Adding AI doubles the Business tier price
  • Loom AI is shown working with Jira items
  • Features and Pricing appear only in the footer
coexploro.com/teardowns/loomView full teardown

Findings

What the personas surfaced.

PM

High impact

Adding AI doubles the Business tier price

The pricing page lists Business at $12.50 and Business + AI at $25. The AI tier is priced at twice the standard tier.

mid confidence

Marketing

High impact

Loom AI is shown working with Jira items

The page presents Loom AI acting on Jira work items.

mid confidence

UX

High impact

Features and Pricing appear only in the footer

The captured top navigation carries no Features or Pricing link. Both appear in the footer.

mid confidence

Design

High impact

The AI bug-report banner runs as body copy

The CTA banner about AI bug reports is written as descriptive body copy. The captured banner carries no headline above that copy.

mid confidence

FAQ

Public sample notes.

Is this a live Loom account scan?

No. It covers three pages that were publicly visible on 10 August 2026. No account, private data or share link is involved.

Why is the UX persona scored lower than the others?

UX returned 78 against 91 for PM and Marketing and 87 for Design. The UX pass rests on two links missing from the header, while the higher passes read the pricing structure and the integration copy.

Why are there no recommendations here?

These pages carry observations only. The underlying run does produce recommendations, but they are written for someone deciding how to compete with the product, which is not what a public page about that product should say.

Next

Run the same format on a product you care about.

Start a teardown