coExploro
Teardowns

Product teardown

Zoom 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 Zoom.

Sample output

Overall score 86/100

PM 88

UX 82

Summary Card + findings

Category
Video meetings platform
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

86/100

Confidence

mid

PM

88/100

UX

82/100

coExploro

Zoom

teardown · captured 2026-08-10

Overall score · good
86
mid confidence
PM
88
MKT
92
UX
82
DSG
83

Top findings

  • Mail and Calendar are listed in the paid tiers
  • The header carries both sales and self-serve entry
  • The comparison grid runs from Recording to Workflow Automation
coexploro.com/teardowns/zoomView full teardown

Findings

What the personas surfaced.

PM

High impact

Mail and Calendar are listed in the paid tiers

The Pro and Business tiers, listed between $14.16 and $18.33, list Mail and Calendar alongside meetings in the same plan rows.

mid confidence

Marketing

High impact

The header carries both sales and self-serve entry

Contact Sales and Sign Up Free sit next to each other in the navigation bar.

mid confidence

UX

High impact

The comparison grid runs from Recording to Workflow Automation

The plan comparison grid lists rows including Recording, AI Features and Workflow Automation.

mid confidence

Design

High impact

The primary navigation stacks links beside action buttons

The primary navigation carries its text links in one bar with its action buttons.

mid confidence

FAQ

Public sample notes.

Is this a live Zoom 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 82 and Design 83, against 92 for Marketing and 88 for PM. UX read the comparison grid and Design read the header, while Marketing read the two entry points.

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