Slack Alternatives: Find the Right Fit for Your Team

Slack can still be working for your team when you start wondering if something else would fit better. Maybe the bill has grown. Maybe conversations are easy to start, but decisions are hard to find later. Or perhaps your team needs a simpler way to turn a request into something someone actually owns.

The best Slack alternative depends on what you want to improve: cost, ease of use, asynchronous communication, task management, or control over where your data lives. Start with that requirement, and the shortlist becomes much more useful.

This guide groups Slack alternatives by the problems teams want to solve. You’ll find options for everyday team chat, client collaboration, and more specialized requirements, with comparisons and practical checks to help you narrow your choices. We also distinguish tools that can replace your team messenger from those that serve a different purpose.

We’re the team behind Chanty, and we’ve spent a lot of time getting to know the team communication space. Before evaluating our own platform, we researched, tested, and compared many of these kinds of tools. We also see these communication challenges in our own day-to-day work, so we look beyond feature lists when evaluating the tool. That experience shapes the way we approach the comparisons in this article. We’ve included Chanty where we genuinely think it fits, and we’ll also be clear when another option, or simply staying with Slack, may make more sense.

Start with the reason you’re considering a switch. You don’t need to evaluate every tool here, just the ones that could make that part of work easier.

Our Top Picks

1

Best all-in-one App

Learn more Start for free

2 All work in a single place 3 Easy-to-use interface

Slack alternatives for everyday team communication

If the shortlist above pointed you toward everyday team chat, start with the basics: finding conversations, sharing files, and getting a colleague on a call. Then look at what you want to improve. A smaller bill, a more useful free plan, and an interface your team feels comfortable with are different priorities – and they may lead you to different tools.

1. When Slack costs more than your team can justify

A lower subscription price is a good reason to look around. The useful comparison, though, is between plans that cover your team’s regular work.

If group calls and screen sharing are part of your week, include them in the comparison from the start. If clients join your workspace, account for guest access. And if an integration saves someone an hour every Friday, its replacement deserves a place in the budget.

Chanty Business brings team conversations, group audio and video calls, screen sharing, and task boards into one workspace. Your team can discuss a request, assign the work, and track its status without moving the follow-up to a separate task app.

Microsoft Teams Essentials deserves a look when meetings are a major part of your work. Its published plan details include meetings for up to 300 participants and 10 GB of cloud storage per user. Before buying it separately, check whether an existing Microsoft subscription already covers your needs.

Pumble Pro is another option when you mainly need messaging and group calls. It adds group meetings and screen sharing to Pumble’s free offering. Include it in your paid-plan comparison if those are the features prompting an upgrade.

There is also a fair reason to keep Slack on the shortlist. Slack Pro includes searchable message history, group huddles, integrations, and tools such as lists and canvases. If your team relies on those workflows, a cheaper subscription needs to offer enough savings to justify rebuilding them elsewhere.

Compare the annual total for your team, including any subscriptions you would still need. Then estimate the work involved in moving. A modest saving can be worthwhile; it just helps to know what you are exchanging for it.

Compare Chanty plans for your team size and calling needs.

2. When you need a useful free plan

A free plan can be enough for daily communication. The deciding factor is often the first requirement that forces you to upgrade.

For Chanty and Pumble, team size creates an immediate distinction:

Sources: Chanty pricing and Pumble’s plan comparison. Plan details may change.

Pumble has the clearer free-plan fit if you need more than five people in one workspace. Its member allowance lets a larger team use messaging without moving straight to a paid subscription.

Chanty’s free plan combines team chat and built-in task management for up to five members. You can turn a message into a task and assign an owner, giving a small team a way to manage conversations and follow-ups before committing to a subscription.

Think about the next few months, too. A five-person team hiring two colleagues should compare paid plans now. A larger team that already has a meeting tool may be comfortable with Pumble’s free messaging and one-to-one calls.

3. When your team wants simpler daily communication

“Simpler than Slack” is easy to promise. What matters is whether your colleagues can do their work with less explanation.

In Chanty, Teambook brings tasks, shared content, and conversations into a central hub. During a trial, ask someone to locate a file from an earlier discussion and find an assigned task. Those small actions will tell you more about the fit than an interface screenshot alone.

Google Chat is also worth considering if your team already spends its day in Gmail and Google Workspace. Its connections with Drive, Calendar, and Meet make it relevant when you want communication close to the tools people already use. Familiarity is a reason to test it, rather than proof that everyone will prefer it.

Give a few colleagues the same short exercise in each shortlisted tool:

• Find a decision from an earlier conversation.
• Share a document with the right people.
• Start a call and adjust notifications afterward.

Notice where they hesitate or need help. Include someone who rarely changes settings – not just the colleague who enjoys exploring new software.

Also ask whether the problem comes from the tool or from how your team uses it. Unclear channel names and expectations of instant replies can follow you into any new workspace. A different interface will not establish those expectations for you.

If the basics work well but conversations still leave people wondering what happens next, the next comparison is about how tools organize work: keeping discussions together, assigning follow-ups, and giving projects a clear home.

Keep team conversations and assigned follow-ups together with Chanty.

Slack alternatives for organizing conversations and work

An easier-to-use messenger can improve daily communication. But if decisions still disappear into discussions or requests never get an owner, the bigger question is how the tool organizes work.

Start with what happens after someone sends a message. Does the conversation need to remain easy to follow tomorrow? Should it become an assigned task? Or does it belong inside a project, alongside deadlines, files, and client feedback? Each calls for a slightly different approach.

4. When conversations need to work across time zones

Zulip and Twist are worth comparing when people need to participate without being online at the same time. Both organize discussions around topics or threads, giving colleagues a defined conversation to return to.

In Zulip, each channel contains named topics that keep separate conversations together. A marketing channel could have discussions about a launch date, landing-page feedback, and campaign results running alongside each other. Replies stay with their topic, even when those discussions continue over several days. The useful habit to establish is naming a new topic whenever the subject changes.

Twist organizes channel discussions into threads, with an inbox that gathers the conversations you have been notified about. You can review a thread, respond, and mark it done in your inbox. That makes it worth exploring if your team prefers to work through discussions at planned intervals.

The distinction is less about which tool has threads and more about the reading experience. Zulip emphasizes moving between named conversations within channels. Twist’s inbox helps you work through relevant thread updates. Both require people to give discussions enough context for someone joining later.

For example, “Thoughts?” attached to a file still leaves colleagues guessing. “Please review the pricing section before Thursday; the layout is already approved” gives them something they can act on without another exchange.

During a trial, ask a colleague who missed a discussion to find the decision and explain what remains unresolved. That is a better test of asynchronous communication than counting unread messages.

5. When client emails and internal discussions lose context

Some conversations begin outside the team. A customer emails a revised brief, colleagues discuss it internally, and someone sends the agreed response. The challenge is keeping those parts of the exchange connected.

Clariti is worth exploring when work regularly moves between email and internal chat. Its email features bring emails and chats into one interface and link related communications by context. It also supports starting an internal chat from an email, giving colleagues a way to discuss the message behind a request.

For example, a client’s change request could become the starting point for an internal discussion about timing and responsibilities. During a trial, check whether a teammate can follow the exchange without asking someone to forward the original email again.

The key questions are whether your email accounts work with the proposed setup and how access to shared context is controlled. Clariti belongs on the shortlist when connecting email and discussion is a priority; teams mainly looking for a different channel-based messenger should compare that experience separately.

6. When requests need owners and visible progress

Sometimes the discussion is perfectly clear. The missing piece is responsibility.

Chanty and ClickUp both let you create tasks from chat messages. The choice depends on how much structure the work needs once it becomes a task.

In Chanty, consider a request such as: “Please update the client proposal with the revised delivery dates.”

Instead of leaving it as a message someone needs to remember, a teammate can:

1. Turn the message into a task.
2. Assign it to the person responsible.
3. Open the task’s discussion for questions about the update.
4. Mark it complete when the work is finished.

Chanty lets you create tasks from messages, assign owners, discuss the work, and mark it complete. Its Kanban view provides another way to review tasks by status. The request and its follow-up stay connected, with a clear owner and visible progress.

ClickUp connects the request to its project-management structure. You can create a task from a channel or direct message, choose its List, or link a message to an existing task. One practical limitation: its documentation currently says you cannot create tasks directly from threaded replies.

If you already manage projects in ClickUp, bringing conversations closer to those tasks deserves a trial. Chanty handles everyday requests through built-in assignments and task discussions within the team messenger.

Slack itself also offers lists for organizing tasks. A move should improve how your team handles the work, rather than simply add a feature category you may already have.

Want to try the message-to-task workflow with a small team? Explore Chanty’s free plan. It includes task creation for up to five members; task boards are listed under Business.

7. When you want project work and discussions together

A task attached to a conversation may be enough for updating a proposal. Running the entire client project requires more: shared instructions, deadlines, reference materials, and a way to review progress.

ClickUp, ProofHub, and Basecamp deserve attention when replacing Slack is part of a wider change to how you manage projects.

ClickUp combines channels and direct messages with its task environment. That makes it a candidate when your team wants conversations connected to structured project work. Pay attention to the Chat plan as well as the task features: its published Chat limits currently give the Free Forever plan a workspace-wide allowance of 1,000 messages that does not reset, plus a 90-day message-history limit.

ProofHub is relevant when project discussions regularly lead to assignments and file reviews. It combines tasks, discussion topics, individual and group chat, and proofing tools. A team reviewing a campaign asset, for example, can evaluate whether discussing the work, annotating the file, and managing the next revision fit comfortably within the same platform.

Its task-management features also include subtasks, recurring tasks, and dependencies. Those are useful comparison points when everyday follow-ups have grown into work that needs more planning. Include ProofHub if you want to reconsider project coordination as well as messaging.

Basecamp organizes collaboration around a project page with message boards, to-do lists, Campfire chat, calendars, and Docs & Files. Teams can use longer posts for discussions and quick chat for shorter exchanges, while keeping reference materials and dates with the project.

The buying question is whether you want to move project work into the platform, too. If everyone keeps using the existing project tool while conversations move somewhere new, you may have added another place to check.

Before committing, take one active project and identify which existing tools the proposed setup would replace. Keep any tool that still performs an essential job better. Do not use “all-in-one” as a substitute for defining your requirements.

8. When clients need a clearer place to collaborate

Working with clients changes the comparison. Your team may need open discussion internally, while the client needs only approved files, delivery dates, and a place to leave feedback.

Basecamp is worth evaluating when clients participate in ongoing projects. Its Client mode lets you control what clients can see on a project-by-project basis. That is a more relevant distinction than simply allowing someone outside the company to join a conversation.

ProofHub deserves a look when the relationship involves reviewing and approving deliverables. Its collaboration features include file annotations, approvals, and private discussion topics. Test the proposed client role with an actual review process to establish what the client can see and do.

For occasional questions, guest access in a team messenger may be sufficient. For recurring reviews and deliverables, a project workspace may provide a clearer home for the relationship.

Test the experience from the client’s side:

• Can they find the current deliverable without asking for another link?
• Can they comment where the responsible teammate will see it?
• Are internal discussions and unfinished work hidden appropriately?
• What happens to their access when the project ends?

A successful invitation is only the beginning of the test.

Once you know how conversations and work should fit together, there is one more practical filter: the software your team already uses. Your existing subscriptions and essential integrations may narrow the shortlist considerably.

Slack alternatives that fit your existing setup

Your shortlist may look different once you account for the software around it. A messenger has to work with the documents, calendars, and project tools your team already uses. It may also overlap with something you already pay for.

Start by separating two questions: Does your existing subscription include a suitable messenger? And can that messenger support the connections your team depends on? The first can save money. The second determines whether switching will make daily work easier.

9. When your existing subscription already includes a messenger

If your company uses Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, evaluate the relevant team messenger before adding another subscription. There is a practical advantage to keeping conversations close to the files and accounts people use every day.

Microsoft Teams is a natural candidate for teams working in Microsoft 365. It combines chat, meetings, and file collaboration within that environment. However, Microsoft sells business subscriptions both with and without Teams, so check the exact plan your organization holds before treating it as an included benefit.

The useful test goes beyond sending a message. Take a regular piece of work—a weekly project review, for example—and see whether colleagues can find the discussion, open the relevant files, and join the meeting without help. Include an external collaborator if that is part of your normal routine.

Google Chat deserves the same consideration for Google Workspace teams. Workspace includes Chat alongside Gmail, Drive, Calendar, and Meet, and Chat connects with those services. That makes it relevant when much of your work already revolves around shared Google documents and meetings.

Try a shared space for one active project. Can everyone find the right document and access it with the permissions they need? Does the conversation remain useful once several people contribute?

Being included in a subscription is a good reason to test a tool. It is not, by itself, a reason to move the whole company. A separate messenger can still make sense if it handles an important workflow better or is more comfortable for the people using it.

10. When essential integrations determine your choice

An integration directory tells you which products can connect. It does not necessarily tell you what that connection does.

“Works with Google Drive” might mean a notification when a file is added. Your team might need something different, such as finding documents from chat or receiving updates when an existing file changes. Those are separate capabilities.

Before comparing tools, write down your essential connections in practical terms:

Chanty brings updates from connected apps into team conversations. Its Google Drive integration notifies your team when new files or folders are added, helping colleagues follow shared work from their team chat.

Chanty also supports automated workflows through Zapier. A new public message can trigger a workflow, and an automation can post a message in a private conversation. Available workflows depend on the triggers and actions supported by both apps, and additional Zapier charges may apply.

Browse Chanty’s integrations with that workflow list beside you. A handful of connections that do the right work can matter more than a much larger directory.

Rocket.Chat is relevant when your existing setup calls for custom connections. Its platform documentation describes marketplace apps, private apps, and API-based integrations. That gives technical teams several routes to investigate, but custom development still needs an owner, a budget, and ongoing maintenance.

The same standard should apply to every candidate. If a critical Slack workflow has no workable replacement, that is a reason to keep evaluating, or postpone the move.

11. When developers need actionable repository updates

For development teams, the question becomes more specific: which repository events need attention, and where should the discussion happen?

Mattermost deserves a look when GitHub activity is central to team communication. Its GitHub integration can send selected repository events to channels and notify connected users about review requests, mentions, and assigned issues. For example, a team could configure a channel to receive pull-request updates from a particular repository while filtering out less relevant activity. Installation and configuration require an administrator, and users connect their GitHub accounts for personal notifications.

Zulip is relevant when those updates need organized follow-up discussions. Its integrations use topics to organize notification messages, and its GitHub and GitLab connections offer event filtering. That makes it worth testing when several issues or changes are being discussed in the same channel.

Chanty delivers GitHub and GitLab activity notifications within team chat, including commits, pull or merge requests, and issues. These updates bring repository activity into the team’s conversations. If you need to perform repository actions from chat, establish that capability separately.

Use one repository for the trial and choose the events deliberately. A review request should help the right person respond; a stream of every available update may simply become another channel people mute.

By this point, your shortlist should fit both the way your team works and the tools around it. The remaining filter is any specialist requirement that could rule an option in or out, such as frontline access, hosting control, or a particular industry workflow.

Slack’s free plan limits searchable history to the last 90 days. Chanty includes unlimited searchable message history.

Slack alternatives for specialist requirements

Some requirements will narrow your shortlist faster than any feature comparison. Staff may need to read updates between shifts. Your organization may need control over hosting. Or the communication you manage may involve members, patients, or business phone calls.

Start with the requirement that cannot be compromised. The options below serve different purposes: some can become your main team messenger, while others address work that ordinary team chat does not cover.

12. When frontline employees need targeted updates

For employees working across shops, facilities, or field locations, a useful communication tool needs to fit into the working day. That includes finding instructions on a phone and knowing which updates need attention.

Connecteam is worth evaluating when targeted employee updates and readership tracking are central requirements. Its Communications Hub combines chat with targeted updates and readership tracking. That makes it relevant when publishing a message is only half the job.

Try it with an actual shift update. Can an employee find the new instruction quickly? Can the supervisor identify who still needs it? Include the phones and access arrangements staff will actually use.

If your needs stop at conversations, calls, and occasional follow-ups, the everyday messengers covered earlier may be sufficient. A dedicated frontline platform becomes more compelling when targeted distribution and acknowledgment are part of the requirement.

13. When your nonprofit needs better value

A nonprofit discount can change which tool offers the best value – including whether leaving Slack makes sense.

Slack’s nonprofit program offers eligible workspaces with up to 250 members a free Pro upgrade. Larger eligible workspaces receive an 85% Pro discount, and eligible organizations can receive an 85% discount on Business+. Approval and eligibility restrictions apply.

Chanty offers a 50% nonprofit discount on Business and Enterprise plans, subject to approval. Its chat and built-in tasks keep staff discussions and assigned program follow-ups together.

Ask for the price that applies to your organization and expected membership. If Slack already works well and your organization qualifies for its free Pro offer, cost alone may give you little reason to move.

14. When your community needs more than chat

An employee workspace and a membership community can both involve discussion, but the work around those discussions is different.

Circle deserves consideration when you need courses, events, paid memberships, and community content in one platform. Its community features make it a candidate for replacing a Slack community whose organizers are also managing access and payments elsewhere.

For a discussion-led group, a tool such as Zulip may be closer to the need. Its topic-based conversations let members return to particular subjects without following every exchange in a channel.

Choose around the member experience: joining, finding relevant discussions, participating, and returning later. A course business and a volunteer discussion group do not need the same platform simply because both call themselves communities.

15. When you need communication on your own infrastructure

Zulip and Rocket.Chat are options to investigate when running the communication service on your own infrastructure is a requirement. Zulip offers open-source server software and self-hosted plans, while Rocket.Chat documents deployment on your own servers or private cloud.

Open source and self-hosting answer different questions. One concerns the software’s license; the other concerns where it runs and who operates it.

Include updates, backups, monitoring, and recovery in the comparison. For Zulip, distinguish the server software from supporting services: its mobile push notification service is free for organizations with up to ten users, with paid plans and eligible community sponsorship available for other cases.

For Rocket.Chat, compare the proposed edition and deployment model with the controls you actually need. Its security documentation describes responsibilities such as infrastructure configuration, access controls, and transport encryption. Self-hosting gives you more operational responsibility as well as more control.

Before choosing, name the person or provider responsible for keeping the service running. Control over infrastructure is useful when you have the capacity to manage it.

16. When enterprise controls, data location, or encryption determine your choice

These considerations often appear together in buying discussions, but one does not establish the others.

For enterprise administration, take the same requirements to every shortlisted vendor. Request evidence for the proposed plan and configuration rather than treating an “enterprise” label as the answer.

Talkspirit is relevant to a European-hosting shortlist, with chat, video, and broader collaboration features. Its FAQ states that data is hosted in France and Switzerland. If your requirement is specifically EU-only hosting, ask which locations apply to your service: Switzerland is outside the EU.

Element and Rocket.Chat warrant a closer look when end-to-end encryption is required. Element documents encrypted messaging and deployment choices. Rocket.Chat supports end-to-end encryption for private rooms and direct messages, but its configuration guide notes that encrypted messages do not appear in search results and that bots may need explicit encryption support.

Those details belong in the decision. A missing required control cannot be offset by a better interface or lower price.

17. When employees need answers from existing discussions

If people repeatedly ask why a decision changed or where an instruction lives, AI-assisted retrieval may be relevant. ClickUp Brain and Gemini in Google Chat are candidates when your team’s information already sits in those environments.

ClickUp Brain can respond in comments and Chat, while Gemini in Chat offers conversation catch-up and action-item assistance. Availability depends on the product offering and plan.

During a trial, ask questions with known answers. Check whether the response reflects the latest decision and whether you can inspect the supporting material.

Also examine where answers appear. ClickUp documents that explicitly supplied private context can inform Brain’s response, and the response is visible to people with access to the location where it is posted. That is a workflow to understand before sharing sensitive material.

An AI feature may improve an existing workspace without requiring you to replace the messenger at all.

18. When remote work needs more spontaneous interaction

Gather is worth exploring when the missing part of remote work is informal interaction. Its virtual office lets colleagues see who is available and join conversations without arranging every exchange in advance.

Evaluate it around those moments: asking a quick question, working alongside someone, or joining a short discussion. Decide separately where ongoing written conversations and important decisions will live.

A virtual office may complement your team messenger. It should enter the shortlist because you want to change how people interact, rather than simply because you want a different chat interface.

19. When you also need business phone service

RingCentral RingEX is relevant when business telephone service is part of the purchase. It combines calling, team messaging, and video meetings.

Evaluate number availability, call routing, and migration alongside internal communication. App-to-app calls and business phone service meet different needs, so establish which one your team requires before comparing subscriptions.

If you only need colleagues to call each other within a workspace, return to the everyday communication options. If you also need to manage business numbers and incoming calls, the phone system belongs in the decision.

20. When healthcare communication has specific requirements

A clinic coordinating reception coverage has different healthcare communication requirements from a hospital routing urgent clinical alerts.

For general staff coordination, evaluate the communication workflow and the required contractual coverage together. Microsoft lists Teams among the services covered by its HIPAA business associate agreement framework. Chanty offers a BAA to customers on its Business plan, so teams can use it as part of a HIPAA-conscious communication setup without treating the availability of a BAA as a separate add-on. As with any platform used for protected health information, confirm the agreement and its covered features and conditions before use.

TigerConnect is a specialist candidate for clinical communication. Its clinical collaboration platform describes role-based routing, patient-context messaging, clinical-system integrations, and escalation of unanswered messages. Those capabilities address requirements beyond ordinary staff chat; confirm the modules and integrations your organization needs.

For US organizations subject to HIPAA, appropriate contractual coverage is one part of the evaluation. The organization must also assess its configuration, access, and operating practices. Using a product with a BAA does not by itself establish compliance.

Once these requirements have narrowed the field, you should have a manageable shortlist. The next step is to find out what moving from Slack would involve: bringing across the right history, rebuilding essential connections, and testing the new setup with one team.

Choose the Slack alternative that solves your team’s problem

By now, you probably have a few candidates worth exploring. Go back to the reason you started looking. Was it the cost, the effort of catching up, or the follow-ups that never quite became someone’s responsibility? Keep that reason at the center of the decision.

Choose two or three tools and give them the same real work to handle. Ask colleagues to find an earlier decision, share a document, and move a request forward. Their experience will tell you more than another feature checklist.

You also have room to be deliberate. Test the migration, check access to important history and files, and resolve the gaps before moving everyone. If an alternative does not improve the work that prompted your search, keeping Slack is a reasonable outcome.

If your priority is team conversations with a straightforward way to assign follow-ups, put Chanty on your shortlist. Start with one team and an active project. See whether people can keep the discussion moving and leave it knowing who does what next.

Try Chanty for free and decide from the work itself.