Companies Using Webex

I have spent most of my career on crawling and indexing infrastructure, and Webex is one of the clearer cases where how you detect a technology decides what your number is allowed to mean. This TechnologyChecker.io analysis covers 26,661 domains with an active Webex organisation, of which 24,289 matched to a company record, and it draws on our August 2026 crawl, company matching, and the co-occurrence and churn data behind the tables above.

What a Webex detection actually means

Webex is not a script you paste into a web page. It is a meetings, messaging and calling suite that runs in an app, so it leaves no widget on a company's public website. What it does leave is an organisation-level record: to claim a domain inside Cisco's administration console, an administrator publishes a token that Cisco issues to that specific organisation. That record is what we detect, and it is why the number on this page should be read as organisations that have provisioned Webex, not page views or meeting minutes.

That distinction cuts both ways and it is worth being direct about it. On the positive side the signal is precise. We checked 70 of these domains against live public records, spanning both the largest organisations in the list and a random sample from the tail, and 69 still published a valid Webex token; the single exception published no records at all and looks dormant. Every match carried an organisation-specific value rather than a generic marker, so this is not a case of a broad vendor string being counted as a product. On the limiting side, a published record proves provisioning rather than daily use, and records outlive the subscriptions that created them. If anything, that means our count runs slightly ahead of the truly active population, and our churn figure runs behind it.

One consequence matters for anyone comparing this page to the rest of the category. Every major technology in Productivity & Collaboration is detected the same way, through the record its vendor asks an administrator to publish. Atlassian, Zoom, Slack, Miro and Smartsheet all sit on that same footing. So while the absolute numbers measure tenancy rather than usage, the comparisons between them are like for like, which is what makes the next section trustworthy.

The install base is old, not merely large

Webex is routinely described as an enterprise product, and the size data only partly supports that. 8.44% of matched Webex organisations employ more than 5,000 people, which is high against Zoom's 3.19% and Slack's 1.12%, but it still trails Smartsheet (10.22%) and Miro (9.15%) in the same category. Size alone is not the distinguishing feature, and the largest single band here is 51-200 employees at 20.26%.

The variable that genuinely separates Webex is age. 47.97% of the organisations behind these domains were founded before 1990. The equivalent figure for Slack is 6.45%. That is a factor of more than seven, between two products in the same category detected by the same mechanism, which rules out the obvious objection that the gap is an artifact of measurement. A quarter of Webex organisations, 25.16%, predate 1960 altogether. Tata Sons, the largest entry in our list, was founded in 1868.

Slack and Webex are not competing for the same customer and never really were. Slack sells to companies founded after the smartphone; Webex sells to institutions founded before the transistor. When people ask why Webex still has a large install base in 2026, this is the answer, and it is visible in a single column of the data.

Where Webex is concentrated

The industry mix says the same thing in a different vocabulary. No single sector dominates, but Government Administration (5.46%), Financial Services (5.20%), Hospitals and Health Care (4.91%), Insurance (4.25%), Banking (4.01%) and Higher Education (3.22%) together make up roughly 27% of matched organisations. These are the buyers with data residency rules, retention obligations and formal supplier approval processes, and they are also, not coincidentally, the buyers most likely to already hold a Cisco networking relationship. The collaboration suite arrives through a procurement door that is already open.

Geography reinforces it. The United States leads at 42.89%, which is actually a lower American share than many products we track. Germany takes 11.04%, nearly three times the United Kingdom's 3.80%, and adding Switzerland and Austria puts the German-speaking market at 14.78%. The stack data corroborates this from an independent angle: Matomo Analytics appears on 6.40% of Webex domains, the highest share among the six largest technologies in this category and about three and a half times Slack's rate. Matomo is the self-hosted, privacy-first analytics choice favoured by European public bodies, and finding it here is consistent with everything the country and industry tables already showed. The inverse holds too: Webex has the lowest Jamf rate of those six at 3.86%, which is what an install base of long-established institutions rather than Apple-first modern firms should look like.

The Zoom question, answered with the overlap

The most common question about Webex is whether Zoom has replaced it. Our data answers it directly, and the answer is not the one the framing expects. 2,305 organisations run both. That is 8.49% of Webex domains and 5.24% of Zoom's, low enough in both directions to confirm these are genuinely distinct products rather than one detection rule catching the other, and large enough to establish that a meaningful population pays for two meeting platforms at once.

The churn data points the same way. Since we began observing changes for this technology in March 2026, movement between Webex and Zoom has been even at nine domains in each direction. Across every neighbouring technology we have recorded 177 domains dropping the Webex record in total, against an install base of more than 26,000. Whatever is happening to Webex, a visible migration to Zoom is not it.

Large organisations do not migrate collaboration tools, they accumulate them. A Webex tenancy and a Zoom tenancy coexisting inside the same company is not an anomaly to be explained away, it is the normal end state of a decade of departmental purchasing.

Reading the growth curve honestly

Our records begin in August 2019 at 290 domains and reach 26,661 by August 2026. That is not Webex's history. Cisco acquired Webex in 2007 and the product predates that by more than a decade, so what this curve tracks is the spread of the organisation-level record, not the arrival of customers. Read it as a picture of how administrative practice changed, not as a growth story.

The series also carries a visible step. Counts here are not a like-for-like comparison over time: the set of domains we crawl turns over every month, with dead sites dropping out and newly discovered ones added, and our detection signals widen as we go. Both of those move the number independently of anything Cisco does, so the shape is a trend rather than a same-domain comparison.

What this means if you are selling

The practical value of this list is its unusually high match rate. 89.5% of detected Webex domains resolved to an identifiable company, well above what we typically see, and that follows from the detection method: publishing an organisation-level record takes an IT administrator and a corporate domain, so parked domains and throwaway microsites are largely absent. What remains is a list of real organisations with real IT functions.

For anyone selling collaboration, security or compliance tooling, the segmentation writes itself. The 27% sitting in government, banking, insurance, healthcare and higher education are procurement-led buyers with long cycles and high retention. The 2,305 organisations running both Webex and Zoom are the clearest displacement targets on the page, since they are already paying twice and have demonstrated they will adopt a second platform. And the pre-1990 cohort, nearly half the list, is the population most likely to be carrying older on-premises infrastructure alongside the cloud suite. TechnologyChecker.io maintains this profile from our own detection data, and every figure quoted here is reproducible from the tables on this page.