Earmark vs Jamie: AI Meeting Notes vs “Meeting → Shippable Work”

If you’re researching Earmark vs Jamie, you’re likely trying to choose the best AI meeting assistant for your workflow—something that delivers meeting transcription, AI meeting notes, meeting summaries, and clear action items without turning every conversation into more admin work. Jamie has carved out a strong niche as a bot-free AI note taker, promising accurate notes, transcripts, and action items across any meeting platform (and even offline) without a meeting bot joining the call. Earmark is built for a different outcome: it’s designed to turn live conversations into execution-ready deliverables—tickets, decision logs, follow-ups, and stakeholder updates—so the meeting ends and the work is already moving.

Jamie is excellent at the “capture and recall” job. It’s positioned as a native app that can generate meeting notes, transcripts, and action items from meetings you run on Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, or in-person conversations, and it highlights multilingual summaries (99+ languages) plus features like speaker recognition and “Ask AI” across past meetings. For people who want a reliable record of what happened—especially without introducing a bot attendee—Jamie is one of the clearest options on the market.

That bot-free approach matters more than most buyers expect. A lot of teams are fine with “AI notetaker bots,” but many others hit adoption friction the moment a tool shows up as a participant in the call. Jamie leans hard into “no meeting bot required,” framing the experience as private, secure, and invisible—running on your device across online, hybrid, and offline meetings. If your organization is sensitive to participant lists, external recorders, or the general awkwardness of a bot joining calls, Jamie’s workflow can be a meaningful unlock.

But here’s the fundamental difference in the Jamie vs Earmark comparison: Jamie is optimized for better meeting notes, while Earmark is optimized for better meeting outcomes. In most teams, the real cost isn’t that meetings go undocumented—it’s that meetings create a second shift. A one-hour conversation turns into two more hours of cleanup where someone has to translate discussion into decisions, owners, follow-ups, tickets, and updates. “AI meeting summaries” help, but they often still require a human to interpret and reformat them into the shapes teams actually execute with.

Earmark is designed to eliminate that translation layer. Instead of producing a recap that someone has to convert into work later, Earmark focuses on turning the meeting into shippable artifacts in real time—so decisions become decision logs, action items become owned follow-ups, and requirements become ticket-ready work that can move immediately. The difference is subtle on paper but massive in practice: Jamie helps you remember what happened, while Earmark helps you leave the meeting with the work already structured and ready to run.

Jamie also clearly emphasizes workflow fit through integrations like Notion, Google Docs, OneNote, and HubSpot to sync notes and transcripts into your stack. That’s useful if your goal is distributing meeting knowledge. But Earmark’s bias is that the best “integration” isn’t pushing notes into more places—it’s producing outputs that don’t need rewriting, so execution tools get clean inputs immediately and the team spends less time debating what the meeting meant.

Pricing is another signal of what Jamie is built for. Jamie offers a free tier (10 meetings/month with a 30-minute cap) and paid plans like Plus (€25/month), Pro (€47/month), and Team (€39/seat/month), with higher limits and longer meeting durations. That makes it easy to try and adopt for individuals and power users who want high-quality meeting notes without a bot. But if you measure ROI by execution time recovered—how quickly work ships after a meeting—the best AI meeting assistant is the one that collapses the meeting-to-output gap the most.

So if you’re choosing between Earmark and Jamie, here’s the simplest decision test: do you want meetings that are easier to review, or meetings that are easier to execute? Jamie is a strong choice for bot-free AI meeting notes, transcription, summaries, and recall across platforms. But if you’re tired of meetings creating a backlog of follow-ups, half-written tickets, and “someone should write this up” work, Earmark is the better bet—because notes are table stakes now, and turning meetings into shippable work is the advantage.