Brett Chereskin
← Back to writing
AI & WorkMay 20, 2026 · 6 min read

I Tried the Big AI Note-Takers. I Keep Coming Back to Granola.

Share

I take a lot of meetings. Some are video, some are phone, some are a founder calling me from a car. For the past few months I have been trying to answer a small but surprisingly sticky question: which AI note-taker should actually live in my workflow — and in the workflows of the people I advise?

I tested several. The big players, the built-in options, the new ones everyone posts about. And after all of it, I keep coming back to the same one: Granola.

This is not a sponsored post and it is not a spec sheet. It is what I learned using these tools on real calls that mattered.

What I Was Actually Testing For

Most note-taker comparisons get lost in feature lists. That is the wrong altitude. As an operator, I do not care which tool has the most checkboxes. I care about three things.

  • Does it disappear?: A good note-taker should feel like a quiet companion, not a third participant. The moment a bot visibly joins the call, the room changes. People perform. They get self-conscious. That tax is real and most tools ignore it.
  • Does it shape the mess?: Raw transcripts are nearly useless. I do not want a wall of text. I want structure — decisions, action items, the thread of what was actually agreed. The value is in the shaping, not the capturing.
  • Does it travel?: My week is not all Zoom. It is Zoom, then Meet, then a phone call, then Teams. A tool that only works in one channel is a tool I will forget to turn on.

Granola won on all three. But the comparison that made it click for me was a direct one.

Granola vs. the Gemini Note-Taker in Google Meet

Google now bakes a Gemini-powered note-taker right into Google Meet. It is genuinely convenient — it is already there, no setup, no extra app. So I ran them side by side on the same kinds of calls and paid attention to what I actually used afterward.

Granola

A quiet companion. It listens in the background and never announces itself to the room, so the meeting feels normal. Afterward it shapes raw notes into clean, structured summaries — decisions, action items, the actual narrative. And it travels: video calls, but also plain phone calls, which is where it pulled ahead.

Gemini in Google Meet

Convenient and zero-setup because it lives inside Meet. The summaries are solid for a straightforward video call. But it is tethered to Google's world — it is great when the meeting is in Meet, and not your tool when the meeting is anywhere else. The output also leaned more "transcript recap" than "here is what you decided."

The honest takeaway: the Gemini option is good, and if every meeting you have happens inside Google Meet, it might be all you need. But my meetings do not live in one place, and I found Granola's summaries easier to act on. They read like notes a sharp chief of staff would hand me, not a recording I have to re-read.

The capture was never the hard part. Every modern tool can transcribe. The differentiator is the shaping — turning a chaotic conversation into a structure you can actually act on tomorrow. That is where I felt the gap.

The Feature Nobody Talks About: Phone Calls

Here is the thing that genuinely surprised me, and the reason Granola jumped from "nice" to "the one."

It handles phone calls. Not just Zoom and Meet video calls — actual phone calls on a regular number. In demos and reviews everyone obsesses over video meetings, because that is the clean, easy case. But in the real world a huge amount of important business still happens on the phone. Clients call you. You call them back. Nobody is spinning up a calendar invite with a video link for a fifteen-minute check-in.

Most note-takers quietly assume a video meeting with a join URL. Granola does not. That single difference closes the gap between "tool I use in my polished meetings" and "tool that captures my actual day."

Where This Got Real

The reason I went this deep is that I am advising someone who runs a VA claims consulting practice — helping veterans navigate their Department of Veterans Affairs claims. As a veteran myself, this is work I care about. They are trying to AI-ify their operation, and they hit the exact problem I had been testing against.

Their clients meet them on whatever channel the client prefers. Some are comfortable on Zoom. Some only use a phone. Some come in through Google Meet or Microsoft Teams because that is what their world runs on. You cannot tell a veteran who needs help with a claim that they have to download a specific app to talk to you. You meet them where they are.

That is a nightmare for capturing notes consistently — unless your tool does not care about the channel.

Granola became the connective tissue. It let the consultant meet clients wherever they wanted to work — phone, Zoom, Meet, Teams — while still capturing every conversation. And because the notes come out structured instead of as raw transcripts, they feed cleanly into the CRM the consultant had already built. The messy, multi-channel front end finally had a clean system of record behind it.

The win was not a better note-taker. It was eliminating the channel tax. Clients pick the channel; the consultant keeps a single, clean record of every conversation. The tool bent to the human, not the other way around.

That is the operator lesson here, and it is bigger than any one product. The right tool is the one that disappears into how people already work. The wrong tool asks everyone to change their behavior so the software can be happy. Veterans calling about their claims are not going to change their behavior, and they should not have to.

How I Would Choose

If you are picking an AI note-taker, do not start with the feature comparison. Start with your actual week.

  • If all your meetings live in one platform: — say everything happens in Google Meet — the built-in option may genuinely be enough. Convenience counts.
  • If your meetings sprawl across channels: — and especially if real business happens on the phone — you want something that travels. That is where Granola separated itself for me.
  • Judge the output, not the recording.: Run the same meeting through two tools and ask which summary you would actually forward to your team. Capture is table stakes. Shaping is the product.

I am not telling you Granola is the only right answer for everyone. I am telling you it is the one I keep reaching for, and the one I confidently recommended when the stakes were a veteran getting help with a claim. That is a real test, and it passed.

If you have run your own bake-off on these tools — or landed somewhere different — I genuinely want to hear it. Drop it in the comments. And if you are trying to AI-ify your own operation and want to talk through where a tool like this fits, reach out through the contact page. That is exactly the kind of problem I like working on.

Comments

Loading comments…

Leave a comment

0/2000

— Read next
AI & WorkJune 12, 2026 · 7 min read

AI SEO Is the New Visibility Game. Here's How I Picked a Tool For It.

People are asking AI instead of Googling. That quietly rewrites the rules of being found. Here's how I evaluated Profound versus Athena for work — and why we went with Athena.

AI & WorkJune 5, 2026 · 6 min read

How I Used Claude to Fight a $600 Insurance Denial — and Actually Filed a Regulator Complaint

A routine visit to a specialist turned into a billing mess and a denied claim. Most people give up at that point. AI is the reason I didn't — and why I filed a formal complaint with the state.

AI & WorkMay 12, 2026 · 6 min read

Opus 4.8 Is My Daily Driver. Then Fable Cracked a Problem It Couldn't.

Claude Opus 4.8 is a real step up and my everyday workhorse. But the first time I handed a sprawling, multi-step problem to Fable — a long-horizon model — I saw where this is actually going.