Choose Otter when you need to return to the original sound of a permitted supervision meeting. Choose Granola when you prefer to take your own rough notes and have them developed using a transcript, without expecting a retained audio recording. If both you and your supervisor are comfortable with written notes alone, neither tool is necessary.
The output that matters is a dependable record of what was agreed. Notibo publishes this comparison, but a supervision meeting is not an occasion to select software before discussing how the participants want it documented.
Start with the agreement between student and supervisor
Otago's PhD student-supervisor agreement expects the candidate and primary supervisor to keep written records of regular meetings. That does not prescribe an AI product or mean every meeting should be recorded.
Use your programme's own expectations as the starting point. Agree what should be written down, who will circulate it and how corrections will be handled. A conversation about a draft chapter may need a short list of revisions; a meeting about changing the project may require a more formal record.
The same app can produce too much detail for the first situation and too little for the second. Decide which record you need before choosing a recorder.
Replay is the clearest difference
| Question | Otter | Granola | Written notes alone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can I revisit the original audio? | Playback and audio export are documented | No retained recording for later playback | No audio source |
| What guides the resulting note? | Recorded conversation and available editing tools | Your notes plus transcript context | What you choose to write |
| What can I share? | Conversation or exported material, subject to permissions | Notes you choose to share | Your checked written record |
| What still needs agreement? | Actions, attribution and deadlines | Actions, attribution and deadlines | Actions, attribution and deadlines |
| What happens if wording is disputed? | Check permitted retained audio where available | Ask the participants; a transcript is not the original sound | Ask the participants and clarify the record |
This distinction is about how you can check a statement later. It is not evidence that one service transcribes New Zealand speakers more accurately.
Otter makes the audio part of the record
Otter's documentation describes playback and sharing permissions and exporting conversation audio as MP3. Its text export options vary by plan, so confirm the output you need in your own account.
That can be useful when an explanation is difficult to capture in a short bullet point. You may want to hear how a supervisor qualified a suggestion before acting on it.
Retaining audio also creates another item to manage. Agree who may access it and where an exported copy belongs. Do not enable broad sharing simply because it makes a link easier to send. A transcript shared with the right people is different from a meeting made accessible to anyone with a link.
Granola suits notes you actively shape
Granola's introductory guide describes creating meeting notes, organising them and using their contents for later questions. The practical appeal is building on the points you already considered important.
Its security documentation says meeting audio is not retained after processing. Desktop transcription happens in real time; mobile processing uses temporarily cached audio. The transcript and notes remain, but they do not give you an original recording to replay.
That can suit a team that wants a concise working note rather than an audio archive. It is a poor fit if your main reason for choosing software is to revisit the exact sound later. Resolve that trade-off before the meeting rather than after discovering that playback is unavailable.
A suggested format for the meeting note
Create a short agenda before the discussion: the question you need answered, the draft or evidence being discussed and the decision that would let you continue. This is an editorial suggestion, not an Otago-prescribed template.
Afterwards, distinguish an agreed action from a possibility. “Consider a different case study” should not become “Replace the case study by Friday” unless that was actually decided.
A useful record can contain an action, its owner, the agreed timing and any condition that still needs resolving. If no deadline was agreed, leave it open for confirmation. A generated date that looks plausible is worse than an honest blank.
Check a hypothetical meeting carefully
Imagine a supervisor says the literature review is ready for another reading, but the proposed method needs discussion with a second adviser. An AI summary might flatten both into “Revise the literature review and method”.
The problem is not just missing words. The note has changed the stage of the work and hidden a dependency. Compare the draft summary with your own notes, then ask for confirmation of the next step.
Also watch for questions rewritten as conclusions, advice attributed to the wrong person and a rejected suggestion appearing among the actions. These are examples of what to check, not reported failures from a head-to-head test of the tools.
Keep progress reporting separate from raw meeting material
A transcript may help you prepare a progress update, but it is not automatically the appropriate thing to submit. Your programme may have a particular form or process, and a long transcript can include unrelated discussion.
Prepare the concise record required for that purpose. Keep any supporting material only as agreed. If you use a generated summary while drafting, check it against the actual meeting before circulating it.
Do not let a folder of recordings become a substitute for deciding what to do next. The New Zealand postgraduate guide and honours-year planning article address the wider project routine.
Where Notibo fits in this comparison
Notibo is relevant when permitted discussion or your own spoken recap should become organised notes and study questions. Its browser recording, transcript and PDF or Word text export can help you retain an explanation in a form you can review.
It does not provide a native supervisory-record system or a direct integration with either Otter or Granola. Generated flashcards cannot be edited individually. A short written action list may therefore remain the simplest home for decisions.
Notibo normally deletes server audio after successful processing. Choose to save your own playable copy if you need one and are authorised to keep it. Temporary retention after a processing or quality failure is a recovery measure, not a promise to archive your research meetings.
What an offline recording can and cannot do
An already open Notibo microphone recording can continue through an internet interruption and upload when the connection returns. The transcription and AI steps happen online. Keep the recording page open and the device awake.
During a face-to-face meeting, the local microphone may still have the conversation available to capture. During an online meeting, missing remote audio cannot be reconstructed if the connection prevented it reaching you. Write down the gap and clarify the point after reconnecting.
Use one main language and review unfamiliar terminology. Automatic language detection does not establish reliable recognition of every language change. If precise wording matters, decide in advance how you will verify it.
Make the record useful at the next meeting
Pick Otter if agreed audio replay is a real requirement. Pick Granola if the preferred output is a note you actively shape and retained audio is unnecessary. Keep manual notes when that already gives everyone a clear, correct plan.
Try Notibo only if its study-oriented treatment of permitted audio addresses an additional need. Its Pro trial lasts 14 days with 240 minutes and no card; paid continuation is optional.
Before the next meeting, reopen the previous agreed actions and mark what changed. That gives the software a purpose: helping you continue the work with the same understanding. For handling the underlying material, see student data privacy in New Zealand.