Mattermost vs Microsoft Teams
They differ on 5 of the 12 things buyers in this category actually ask about. Here is where, and what each one asks you to give up.
Mattermost
$10/seatOpen-source, self-hostable team chat built for regulated and air-gapped environments.
Strongest argument
Runs entirely inside your own infrastructure, including air-gapped
Biggest objection
Mobile and desktop clients trail the commercial alternatives in polish
Self-hosting is a real, ongoing operations cost — budget for the people, not just the licence.
Microsoft Teams
$4/seatChat and meetings bundled into Microsoft 365, so the marginal cost is often zero.
Strongest argument
Already paid for if you licence Microsoft 365 — often the cheapest viable option
Biggest objection
Threading is awkward enough that conversations fragment across chats and channels
The client is heavy, and channel/thread structure frustrates teams used to Slack.
The differences that matter
Where they actually diverge
Only the rows where the two disagree. Everything they both do is listed below.
Cost
What each costs at 50 people
List price only. It ignores add-ons, seat minimums and the cost of the move itself — all of which routinely dwarf the difference below.
Prices are unverified estimates — useful for comparing orders of magnitude, not for budgeting. Confirm the current figure with the vendor before you commit to anything.
Common ground
What both of them do
These will not help you choose — which is exactly why they are worth knowing about before a vendor pitches one as a differentiator.
- Conversation modelChannels with threads
- Retention and export controlsYes
- SAML single sign-onYes
- SOC 2Yes
- EU data residencyYes
- Public APIYes
- Native mobile appsYes
In full
Every pro and con, both sides
Mattermost
- Runs entirely inside your own infrastructure, including air-gapped
- Data residency is whatever you decide it is
- Slack-compatible enough that import and muscle memory both survive
- Mobile and desktop clients trail the commercial alternatives in polish
- Integration ecosystem is a fraction of Slack’s
- Upgrades and scaling are your problem once you self-host
Microsoft Teams
- Already paid for if you licence Microsoft 365 — often the cheapest viable option
- Meetings, chat and files in one product, with real PSTN dial-in
- Compliance, retention and eDiscovery that satisfy regulated buyers
- Threading is awkward enough that conversations fragment across chats and channels
- Desktop client performance is a recurring complaint on older hardware
- External collaboration works but is noticeably clumsier than Slack Connect
Questions
Mattermost vs Microsoft Teams, answered
Mattermost or Microsoft Teams — which is better?
Neither, in the abstract. Mattermost suits you if runs entirely inside your own infrastructure, including air-gapped matters most; Microsoft Teams if already paid for if you licence Microsoft 365 — often the cheapest viable option does. The honest trade-offs are: Mattermost — Self-hosting is a real, ongoing operations cost — budget for the people, not just the licence. Microsoft Teams — The client is heavy, and channel/thread structure frustrates teams used to Slack.
Is Mattermost cheaper than Microsoft Teams?
Microsoft Teams is cheaper at 50 people — $10/seat/mo against $4/seat/mo, roughly $2,400 against $6,000 a year. That gap of about $3,600 is rarely the whole story though — add-ons, seat minimums and the cost of migrating routinely outweigh it.
Can we migrate from Mattermost to Microsoft Teams?
Usually yes, and the difficulty depends on history, integrations and headcount far more than on the two products. Data export quality is the thing to check first: ask both vendors what you can take with you before you commit to either. Our questionnaire produces a scoped estimate for the move.
What else should we consider besides Mattermost and Microsoft Teams?
In team communication the other credible options are Discord, Slack, Zulip. Narrowing to two before you have written down your requirements is the most common way to end up with the wrong one.
Do not stop at two