Team screen sharing and bug reporting workspace used to compare Zight and Loom
If you used CloudApp before 2023, the name change to Zight is worth clearing up first — same company, same core product, rebranded rather than replaced. With that settled, the actual comparison people searching for this are after: Zight versus Loom, two tools solving a similar problem with different priorities.
The short version: Both give you instant capture and a shareable link with minimal friction. Zight leans further into fast screenshot-and-annotate workflows (bug reports, quick visual replies) alongside video; Loom leans further into polished async video communication specifically. The right pick depends on whether screenshots or video are your primary daily use.
The rebrand, briefly
CloudApp launched in 2010 and operated under that name for thirteen years before rebranding to Zight in March 2023. The mission and core product didn’t change — instant capture and sharing for team communication — but if you’re seeing “Zight” for the first time and wondering whether it’s a new competitor or the tool you already know, it’s the latter.
Where Zight actually differentiates
Zight treats screenshots as a first-class citizen alongside video, not an afterthought — capture, annotate, and get a link in roughly the same number of steps regardless of which format you’re using. For teams doing a lot of bug reporting or quick visual replies (support, engineering, QA), that screenshot-first parity matters more than it sounds like it would.
What’s included across the core workflow:
- Screenshots, screen recordings, and GIFs, all treated as first-class capture types
- Instant link generation, no account required for viewers
- Cross-platform: Mac, Windows, Chrome extension, iOS
- Annotation tools directly on captured screenshots
⚠️ What actually breaks:
Zight’s pricing is per-user and scales with team size ($9/mo individual, $8-11/user/mo for Team) — for a large team, this adds up faster than a flat-rate tool would. Budget accordingly if you’re rolling this out beyond a handful of people.
Where Loom actually differentiates
Loom’s product decisions all point toward one thing: making a recorded video message feel as fast as typing one. Its free tier and workflow are built specifically around that, more than Zight’s broader screenshot-plus-video approach.
Zight vs. Loom, directly
| Zight | Loom | |
|---|---|---|
| Screenshot support | First-class, equal to video | Secondary, video-focused |
| Starting price | $9/mo (Pro) | Free tier / $15+/mo (Business) |
| Platform | Mac, Windows, Chrome, iOS | Mac, Windows, browser, mobile |
| Best for | Bug reports, support, mixed screenshot+video | Async video updates, team communication |
Who each one is actually for
Zight fits teams where screenshots and quick visual bug reports happen as often as (or more often than) video — engineering, QA, support. Loom fits teams whose primary need is recorded video updates and doesn’t need the screenshot workflow to be equally fast.
Frequently asked questions
Is CloudApp still available, or did it become Zight?
It rebranded to Zight in March 2023 — same company and core product, new name.
Is Zight better than Loom?
Neither is objectively better — Zight’s screenshot-first workflow suits bug-reporting and support use cases; Loom’s video-first approach suits async team communication specifically.
Is Zight expensive for a larger team?
Its per-user pricing ($8-11/user/mo for Team) scales with headcount, which is worth budgeting for before rolling it out broadly.
Related reading: Loom review · TechSmith Snagit review · Screenpresso review