Loom Under Atlassian: One Product, Two Checkouts
Async video went mainstream largely because Loom made recording a screen and a face feel like a two-click operation. Atlassian’s acquisition has not damaged that core, but it has complicated everything around it. The vendor’s pricing page now openly acknowledges that buying Loom through Atlassian.com yields different integrations and security tooling than buying it on Loom’s own site, described as a temporary state while the platforms merge. Prospective buyers are being asked to pick a storefront before they pick a plan.
Loom tier essentials, USD, checked August 2026
- Starter is free but limited to 25 videos of five minutes each
- Business is $18 per user monthly, with unlimited videos and no recording time cap
- Business plus Loom AI is $24 per user monthly
- Annual billing is advertised at a 17% saving
- Enterprise is quote-only and adds SSO, SCIM and a 99.95% uptime commitment
Why there are now two places to buy the same thing
Loom’s pricing page states that purchasing via Atlassian.com brings Confluence and Jira integrations along with Atlassian Guard security features, and that these differences exist for a limited time during integration. That is unusually candid, and it is also an admission that the product is mid-migration.
For a team already standardised on Jira, the Atlassian route is obviously correct. For everyone else it creates a genuine risk: choosing the standalone path today may mean a migration later, and Atlassian has form for folding acquired billing into its own platform. Anyone signing a multi-year commitment should ask directly what happens to their contract when the integration completes.
Twenty-five videos and five minutes: the free ceiling
The Starter plan is not a trial disguised as a tier, but it is close. Twenty-five videos is a fortnight of normal use for anyone who has actually adopted async video, and the five-minute recording limit cuts across the most valuable use case, walking a colleague through something complicated.
The free tier also carries no AI whatsoever, which means no transcript-derived summaries and no automatic chaptering. Given that searchable transcripts are much of what makes a video library useful six months later, the free plan produces an archive that is difficult to retrieve from. Workspace membership is capped at 50 people, which is generous by comparison and slightly beside the point.
Viewer analytics are the other absence worth naming. Knowing who opened a recording and how far they watched is what makes async video defensible as a replacement for a meeting, and the reporting that answers that question is not part of the free offer. Without it, a team has swapped a meeting nobody could skip for a video nobody has to watch, with no way to tell the difference.
Loom AI is a separate line, not a feature flag
The six-dollar gap between Business at $18 and Business with Loom AI at $24 is a third again on the seat price, and it buys auto-enhancement, the video-to-document workflow, automatic meeting recaps and admin insights. Notably, plain Business includes only basic editing and no AI at all.
This is the structural criticism worth making. Competitors have largely absorbed transcription and summarisation into their base tiers, and Loom charges for them separately. If the AI features are what drew you to Loom in the first place, the honest comparison price is $24 a seat, not the 18 the marketing leads with.
Buyers should also check how the AI allowance behaves rather than assuming it is unmetered. Vendors across this category have moved towards capped generative usage, and a per-seat AI tier that turns out to carry a monthly ceiling is a different purchase from one that does not. Ask what happens on a heavy month, in writing, before signing an annual agreement at the higher rate.
What the editor still refuses to do
- Multi-track timeline editing remains absent, so anything beyond trimming and stitching needs an external tool
- There is no meaningful control over encoding quality for archival purposes
- Downloading an entire library in bulk is awkward, which makes leaving the platform slow
- Offline recording works, but the upload dependency means a flaky connection can strand a finished take
- Branding controls sit above the base Business tier, which surprises agencies sending client-facing video
The Confluence and Jira pitch is the real argument
Where Loom now makes most sense is inside an Atlassian estate. A recording embedded in a Confluence page or attached to a Jira ticket does something that a link to a video platform does not: it puts the explanation next to the work item, and it survives the person who recorded it leaving.
That integration is also the lock-in. Videos embedded across hundreds of Confluence pages are not portable in any practical sense, and the more thoroughly a team adopts the pattern, the more expensive the eventual exit becomes. This is worth deciding deliberately rather than discovering in year three.
When a plain screen recorder wins
Loom’s advantage is hosting, sharing and the viewer analytics that tell you whether anyone watched. If your videos are internal, infrequent, and shared in a channel where people will watch them immediately, the operating system’s built-in recorder plus a shared drive covers the requirement at zero marginal cost.
The calculation flips when video becomes an institution rather than an occasional convenience: onboarding libraries, recorded design reviews, customer support explanations that get sent hundreds of times. At that volume the transcript search and the permission model justify the per-seat cost, and the AI tier stops looking like an upsell and starts looking like the product.
There is a third position, which is to use Loom for the outward-facing work and something cheaper internally. Client walkthroughs, support explanations and sales follow-ups benefit from the polish, the branded share page and the engagement data. A quick note to a colleague sitting two desks away does not, and paying $24 a seat so that everyone can record those is how the bill grows without the value following it.
Sources: Loom pricing · G2, Atlassian Loom pricing · Supademo, Loom pricing post-Atlassian · Screenify, Loom pricing after Atlassian
