We Tried All Three. Here's Which Team Chat Won (And Why).

When we went fully remote in 2022, our team communication became existentially important. Every interaction that used to happen at desks, in corridors, or over coffee now needed to flow through whatever platform we chose. The stakes for choosing well felt enormous.

So we didn't choose. At least, not permanently. Over nine months, we ran a deliberate experiment: three months on Slack, three on Microsoft Teams, three on Discord. Same team, same work, different platforms.

The results challenged our assumptions. The platform we expected to win didn't. The platform we expected to feel awkward became a genuine favourite for certain functions. And the "right" answer turned out to depend entirely on what kind of team culture we wanted to build.

Here's everything we learned from 30 people working daily on all three platforms.

The Experiment Structure

Fair comparison required controlled conditions. We couldn't just casually try each platform—we needed genuine immersion.

Each platform got exclusive use for three months. No shadow channels on the old platform. No "just this once" exceptions. Complete commitment to learning each tool's strengths and working around its weaknesses.

We tracked specific metrics throughout:

Message volume: Total messages sent, segmented by channel type. Response time: Average time to first response on questions. Meeting metrics: Video call count, average duration, reported quality issues. Search effectiveness: Could people find information they knew existed? Integration usage: How often did we use connected apps? Satisfaction scores: Monthly survey on platform experience. Qualitative feedback: Weekly open-ended feedback sessions.

The team knew they were participating in an experiment, which introduced observation bias. But since the goal was genuine adoption of each platform, the bias was acceptable—we wanted people to try to make each platform work.

Slack: The Established Leader

Slack was our starting point—the default assumption for startup team communication. Most team members had prior Slack experience from other companies.

What Worked

The integration ecosystem genuinely impressed. We connected GitHub for PR notifications, Jira for ticket updates, Google Calendar for meeting alerts, Notion for wiki updates, and Zapier for custom automations. Information flowed into Slack from everywhere, creating a genuine command centre.

Search was excellent. Finding old conversations, files, and decisions worked reliably. The ability to search within specific channels, by sender, or by date range helped locate information that would be lost in other systems.

Channel organisation enabled clear separation. Project channels, team channels, social channels, announcement channels—the hierarchy was intuitive and scalable.

The mobile app was polished and reliable. Notifications worked consistently. The interface was responsive. Remote work on mobile felt first-class.

What Didn't Work

Cost surprised us. At £6.25 per user per month on Pro plan (the minimum for reasonable history access), 30 people meant £187.50 monthly—over £2,200 annually. For a startup, that's meaningful spend on a communication tool.

Free tier limitations were crippling for any serious use. Only 90 days of message history meant losing institutional knowledge. Limited integrations restricted the command-centre value proposition.

The notification balance was difficult. Important messages drowned in channel noise. Everyone developed different strategies for managing notifications, creating inconsistent responsiveness.

Video calling existed but felt secondary. Huddles were convenient but limited. Serious meetings required switching to Zoom or Google Meet, fragmenting the communication experience.

Slack Metrics (3 Months)

Messages sent: 47,832 Average daily messages: 531 Average response time (questions): 14 minutes Video calls (huddles): 89 Reported quality issues: 12 Integration events: 8,200+ Monthly satisfaction: 7.8/10 Monthly cost: £187.50

Microsoft Teams: The Enterprise Option

Teams entered our evaluation with mixed expectations. The Microsoft association suggested enterprise bloat, but the free tier was attractive.

What Worked

Cost was transformative. With existing Microsoft 365 subscriptions, Teams was effectively free. Even without existing licenses, the free tier offered unlimited messages, 100 participant video calls, and 5GB file storage. For cost-conscious startups, this mattered enormously.

Video calling was genuinely excellent. Integrated, reliable, and featured. Background blur, together mode, breakout rooms, recording, live transcription—Teams treated video as first-class rather than add-on.

File collaboration integration with SharePoint and OneDrive meant documents lived where communication happened. No downloading attachments from Slack to upload to Google Drive. Edit in context.

For Microsoft-ecosystem organisations, the integration was seamless. Calendar, email, documents, and chat in unified interface.

What Didn't Work

The interface felt cluttered and overwhelming. Too many features, too many tabs, too many options presented simultaneously. New team members needed onboarding just for navigation.

Search was noticeably worse than Slack. Finding old conversations felt hit-or-miss. The same query that would surface relevant Slack messages returned nothing useful in Teams.

The startup culture fit was awkward. Teams felt designed for large enterprises—the formality of the interface, the organisational structure assumptions, the meeting-heavy workflow defaults.

Channel notifications defaulted to aggressive settings that overwhelmed unless immediately customised. Most team members never found the right configuration.

Teams Metrics (3 Months)

Messages sent: 41,207 Average daily messages: 458 Average response time (questions): 18 minutes Video calls: 147 Reported quality issues: 8 Integration events: 2,400 Monthly satisfaction: 6.4/10 Monthly cost: £0 (free tier)

Discord: The Unexpected Contender

Discord entered the evaluation as wild card. The gaming heritage seemed mismatched with professional use. But several team members had positive Discord experiences and argued for inclusion.

What Worked

Voice channels transformed spontaneous communication. Unlike scheduled calls, voice channels are persistent spaces—hop in when you want to talk, hop out when done. "Co-working" sessions with cameras off, ambient presence, and occasional conversation replicated office energy more than any other tool.

The community feel emerged naturally. The casual, less-corporate interface encouraged informal communication. Memes, emoji reactions, and voice drop-ins created culture that text-only channels couldn't.

Cost was minimal. Free tier is generous. Nitro (£8/month for server boosts) was optional enhancement, not requirement. Total team cost: £0 to £8 monthly, regardless of team size.

The mobile app was excellent—fast, reliable, well-designed. Notifications were granular and customisable.

Young team members already knew it. Onboarding was instant for anyone under 35 who'd used Discord socially.

What Didn't Work

Professional integration was limited. GitHub integration existed but felt bolted-on. The app ecosystem was smaller and less business-focused.

Search was adequate but not Slack-level. Finding specific old conversations was harder.

Enterprise features were minimal. Compliance, audit logs, advanced permissions—the features regulated industries require were absent or limited.

Some stakeholders found it unprofessional. External clients or board members joining a Discord server felt awkward—the gaming aesthetic signalled casual in ways that created perception issues.

Discord Metrics (3 Months)

Messages sent: 52,847 Average daily messages: 587 Average response time (questions): 8 minutes Voice channel hours: 1,240 Video calls (formal): 67 Reported quality issues: 5 Integration events: 1,100 Monthly satisfaction: 8.2/10 Monthly cost: £8 (server boost)

Feature-by-Feature Comparison

Direct comparison across critical features:

Text Messaging

Slack: Excellent threading, rich formatting, good organisation. Teams: Adequate threading, rich formatting, cluttered organisation. Discord: Good threading, adequate formatting, flexible organisation.

Winner: Slack narrowly, then Discord.

Voice Calling

Slack: Huddles are convenient but limited. No always-on voice presence. Teams: Excellent scheduled calls, no persistent voice channels. Discord: Persistent voice channels plus scheduled calls. Ambient presence.

Winner: Discord for spontaneous, Teams for scheduled.

Video Calling

Slack: Basic, often insufficient for serious meetings. Teams: Excellent. Best-in-class for business video. Discord: Good but feels less polished for professional settings.

Winner: Teams clearly.

Search

Slack: Excellent. Operators, filters, reliable results. Teams: Inconsistent. Sometimes works, sometimes misses obvious content. Discord: Adequate. Works for recent content, struggles with old.

Winner: Slack clearly.

Integrations

Slack: 2,400+ app integrations. Comprehensive ecosystem. Teams: Growing ecosystem, strong Microsoft integration, smaller third-party library. Discord: Limited business integrations. Bots add functionality but DIY.

Winner: Slack clearly.

File Sharing

Slack: Good file sharing, limited storage on free tier. Teams: Excellent, integrated with OneDrive/SharePoint. Discord: Basic file sharing, size limits, no document collaboration.

Winner: Teams.

Mobile Experience

Slack: Polished, full-featured, reliable notifications. Teams: Functional but heavier, occasional notification issues. Discord: Excellent, lightweight, reliable.

Winner: Slack and Discord tied.

Pricing (30 Users)

Slack Pro: £187.50/month (£2,250/year) Teams: £0 (free tier) to £90/month with Microsoft 365 Discord: £0-8/month

Winner: Discord and Teams (free) clearly.

Learning Curve

Slack: Low. Intuitive interface, familiar paradigms. Teams: Medium-high. Feature overload, Microsoft conventions. Discord: Low for younger users, medium for others unfamiliar with gaming platforms.

Winner: Slack, then Discord.

Team Feedback Themes

Anonymised quotes captured consistent themes.

On Slack

"Feels professional without being stuffy. I trust I'll find things when I search."

"The integrations make it a genuine command centre. I don't want to check eight different apps."

"Cost is hard to justify when we're watching every pound. Free tier is unusable."

On Teams

"Video quality is the best. Recording and transcription are genuinely useful."

"I can never find anything. Search is broken or I don't understand it."

"Feels like being in a corporation. Too many menus, too many features."

On Discord

"Voice channels are magic. It's the closest to being in the same office."

"I worry about looking unprofessional to investors or clients."

"The vibe is better. People actually chat, not just work-talk."

Which to Choose: Decision Framework

Different teams should choose different platforms. Here's the decision tree.

Choose Slack If:

Integration ecosystem is critical—you need 20+ apps flowing into one place. Search reliability matters—you'll need to find decisions made months ago. Professional polish is important for external stakeholders accessing channels. You can afford £6-12 per user monthly without budget stress. Your workflow is primarily text-based async communication.

Choose Teams If:

Video meetings are central to your work style. Microsoft 365 is already your productivity suite. Cost must be minimal—free tier is sufficient for many teams. File collaboration with Office documents is frequent. You're comfortable with the enterprise-style interface.

Choose Discord If:

Voice-first communication appeals—ambient presence, spontaneous calls. Your team skews younger and already knows Discord. Cost must be minimal-to-zero. You want informal, community-feel culture. External stakeholder perception isn't critical. Gaming/creative industry where Discord is normalized.

Avoid Each If:

Slack: Budget is severely constrained and you can't justify per-user pricing. Teams: You hate Microsoft products or value search reliability highly. Discord: External perception matters or you need compliance features.

Our Decision

After nine months, we made a split decision that surprised us.

Primary platform: Discord. The voice channels and team culture benefits outweighed the professional polish concerns. Our team is young, already Discord-native, and values the spontaneous communication that voice channels enable. Response times were fastest, satisfaction was highest, and cost was lowest.

Secondary platform: Microsoft Teams for video meetings. When we need formal recorded meetings—board meetings, client calls, all-hands—Teams' video quality and features are superior. The combination works: chat and daily communication in Discord, scheduled professional meetings in Teams.

We kept Slack for one use case: external integration hub. The GitHub, Jira, and monitoring integrations flow into a Slack workspace that we check but don't primarily communicate through. This adds cost (Slack subscription) but preserves the integration value without forcing Slack as primary communication tool.

The hybrid approach adds complexity but leverages each platform's genuine strengths. We're not forcing Teams' awkward chat experience, not paying Slack's premium for primary communication, and not losing Discord's community benefits.

Your team may reach different conclusions. The right answer depends on your team's culture, existing tooling, budget constraints, and communication style.

Migration Considerations

Switching team communication platforms is disruptive. Consider carefully.

Slack to Teams

Message history export exists but is admin-only and clunky. Channel structure translates approximately to Teams channels. Integrations may need rebuilding—different ecosystems. Team adjustment: significant. Interface paradigm differs.

Slack to Discord

Message history doesn't migrate well—screenshot important threads. Channel structure maps but culture changes significantly. Integrations severely reduced—plan alternatives. Team adjustment: depends on Discord familiarity.

Teams to Slack

Message history export limited. Channel structure translates reasonably. Integration expansion—more apps available. Team adjustment: moderate. Similar paradigm, better execution.

Teams to Discord

Message history doesn't migrate meaningfully. Channel structure maps loosely. Formal → casual culture shift is significant. Team adjustment: significant for enterprise-trained teams.

Key Takeaways

Each platform has genuine strengths: Slack for integrations and search, Teams for video and cost, Discord for voice channels and culture.

Nine months of exclusive testing revealed that satisfaction correlated with platform-culture fit more than feature lists.

Slack Pro costs £2,250+ annually for 30 users. Teams and Discord are effectively free. Budget constraints legitimately influence the right choice.

Search reliability varies dramatically: Slack excellent, Teams inconsistent, Discord adequate.

Voice channels in Discord transformed our spontaneous communication in ways neither Slack nor Teams could replicate.

Video meeting quality: Teams wins clearly for recorded, featured professional meetings.

Integration ecosystems: Slack's 2,400+ apps versus limited alternatives elsewhere. If integrations are critical, Slack's cost is justified.

The hybrid approach—Discord for daily communication, Teams for formal meetings—leverages each platform's strengths without accepting weaknesses.

Team culture considerations matter as much as features. Discord feels casual; Slack feels professional; Teams feels enterprise. Your desired culture should inform platform choice.

Migration between platforms is disruptive enough to warrant careful experimentation before committing.

Chaos complements any team chat by tracking action items and follow-ups that emerge from conversations—the tasks that get mentioned in Slack threads but forgotten without systematic capture.