You've realized video bug reports are better than text. Now you need to figure out which screen recording tool to actually use.
Loom is the obvious choice—everyone uses it, it's free, it works. But maybe you want something with more features. Or something that doesn't require clients to create accounts. Or something that records locally instead of uploading to the cloud.
Here are the five screen recorders that actually work for bug tracking, what makes each one different, and which one you should use.
Loom: The standard everyone uses
Loom is popular for a reason. Click the browser extension, choose what to record (screen, window, or tab), click start. Record your bug. Click stop. Instantly get a shareable link. Send it.
The whole process takes 30 seconds. Client doesn't need to understand file formats or compression or where to upload the video. Just click, record, send link. It's the easiest screen recorder to get non-technical clients to actually use.
Free plan gives you unlimited videos up to 5 minutes each. For bug reports, that's plenty—most bugs can be shown in under a minute. Premium plan ($12/month) removes the time limit and adds custom branding, but you don't need it for bug tracking.
The downside: videos are stored on Loom's servers. If you work with clients who have strict data privacy requirements, this might be a problem. And if Loom goes down (rare, but happens), you can't access the videos temporarily.
Best for: Getting clients to actually record videos without friction. The path of least resistance.
ScreenPal (formerly Screencast-O-Matic): The privacy-focused alternative
ScreenPal works almost exactly like Loom. Browser extension, click to record, get a shareable link. The interface is slightly clunkier but clients figure it out fine.
The key difference: ScreenPal has better privacy controls. You can password-protect videos. You can set videos to automatically delete after a certain time. You can prevent downloads. If you're working with clients in healthcare, finance, or anywhere with compliance requirements, these features matter.
Free plan is more limited than Loom—15 minutes per video, watermark on recordings. But for bug reports, 15 minutes is still way more than you need.
Paid plan ($3/month) removes watermark, adds editing tools, lets you save videos locally instead of just to their servers. Cheaper than Loom premium and gives you more control over where videos live.
Best for: Clients with privacy requirements or teams that want more control over video storage.
CloudApp: The screenshot-plus-video combo
CloudApp does both screenshots and screen recordings in one tool. This is useful because sometimes a bug needs a quick screenshot, not a full video. Client can grab either one from the same tool.
The screen recording works like Loom—click, record, share link. But CloudApp also makes it really easy to annotate screenshots with arrows, text, and highlights. If a client needs to point out "this specific button," they can screenshot it and draw an arrow in 5 seconds.
Free plan is limited—90 seconds per video, 25 items total. That's tight for bug tracking. You'll hit the limit fast.
Paid plan ($9.95/month) gives unlimited recordings up to 5 minutes, unlimited storage, and custom branding. More expensive than Loom or ScreenPal for similar features, but the screenshot annotation is genuinely useful.
Best for: Teams that need both screenshots and videos and want one tool for both.
Built-in tools (Mac/Windows): The zero-setup option
Mac has built-in screen recording (Cmd+Shift+5). Windows has built-in recording (Windows+G). Both work fine for creating screen recordings.
The problem: clients then need to figure out where the video saved, how to compress it (raw recordings are huge), and how to send it to you. Email bounces it because file too large. They try uploading to Google Drive or Dropbox, which works but adds friction.
This is why most teams don't use built-in recorders for client bug reports. The recording part is easy. The sharing part is annoying enough that clients just... don't do it.
Best for: Internal team bug reports where everyone knows how to handle video files. Not great for client-facing work.
Zight (formerly CloudApp): The Slack-integrated option
If your entire bug tracking workflow lives in Slack, Zight makes sense. Record screen, video automatically posts to Slack. No links to copy-paste, no leaving Slack.
Works exactly like CloudApp (same company, different product) but optimized for Slack workflows. Client records bug, it shows up in your shared Slack channel, you watch it inline.
The limitation: both you and client need to be in the same Slack workspace. If you use Slack for internal team stuff but not with clients, this doesn't work. And if you switch away from Slack later, all your bug report videos are trapped in Slack history.
Best for: Teams already using Slack heavily with clients and want everything in one place.
What we actually recommend
For most agencies, use Loom. It's the easiest to get clients to adopt. The free plan works fine. Videos are hosted so clients don't need to figure out file sharing. You can watch videos at 2x speed. It just works.
If you have privacy concerns or need better control over video storage, use ScreenPal. Slightly more friction but still simple enough for clients.
If you need screenshots plus video in one tool, CloudApp makes sense. More expensive, but the screenshot annotation is useful.
Don't make clients use built-in recorders unless they're technical and you've already set up a good file-sharing system.
And if your bug workflow is entirely Slack-based, Zight keeps everything in one place.
The real answer: use whatever your clients will actually use
The "best" screen recorder is whichever one clients will open when they find a bug. Loom has the lowest friction. But if your client already uses CloudApp for screenshots, just tell them to use CloudApp for videos too. Don't make them learn a new tool.
The tool matters less than the workflow. What matters is: client finds bug, records 30-second video showing what's broken, sends it to you somehow. Whether that video comes via Loom or ScreenPal or CloudApp doesn't really matter as long as you can watch it and understand the bug.
That said, we built Lantern with Loom integration because Loom is what most clients already have or can set up in 30 seconds. Client pastes Loom link into bug report, video shows inline, you watch it and fix the bug. Simple.
But if your clients prefer ScreenPal or CloudApp, those links work in Lantern too. We're not picky about which screen recorder you use as long as you're using video instead of vague text descriptions.
How to choose for your team
Try Loom first. It's free and it's what most guides (including ours) recommend, so clients might already have it installed.
If privacy is a concern, try ScreenPal. If you need screenshot tools too, try CloudApp.
Send a test video to yourself. See how long it takes. See if the quality is good enough to see UI details. See if you can watch it at 2x speed (important for getting through lots of bug reports quickly).
Then tell your clients: "When you find a bug, use [this tool] to record a quick video showing what's happening." Most will do it without complaint because recording a video is genuinely easier than writing a detailed bug report.
The mistake people make
Don't overthink which screen recorder to use. Teams spend hours researching features and pricing when the actual answer is: use Loom, it's free and it works.
The hard part isn't choosing a screen recorder. The hard part is getting clients to actually record videos instead of sending "it's broken" emails. Once you solve that problem (usually by just asking them to do it), the specific tool barely matters.
Loom is popular because it makes the recording-and-sharing process so smooth that clients actually do it. That's the whole value proposition. The video quality is fine. The feature set is fine. What matters is client adoption.
Start with Loom. If you hit a specific limitation (privacy, storage, pricing), then look at alternatives. But don't solution-shop before you have a problem to solve.
Making it part of your workflow
Whichever tool you pick, set it up properly:
Tell clients which tool to use. Send them a link to download it. Walk the first client through recording one video so they see how easy it is.
Create a standard request: "Can you record a quick 30-second video showing me what's happening?" Have this message saved as a text snippet so you can paste it.
When you get your first video bug report, fix the bug fast. Client will notice they got a faster fix by sending video instead of text. They'll send videos for every bug after that.
After two weeks, video bug reports will be your default. Email bug reports will feel ancient.
Try Lantern free for 14 days and see if built-in Loom support makes the workflow smoother. Or keep using whatever screen recorder you pick with your current bug tracker. Either way, the video is what matters, not which tool created it.
The goal is to stop getting "the website is broken" emails and start getting 30-second videos that show exactly what's broken. Any screen recorder that makes that happen is the right choice.
Built-in Loom integration. Stop copying video links into spreadsheets.