Which one is better for solo interview podcasts?

Both handle simple two-person interviews well since each records every participant locally in high quality. The difference shows up in extras. Riverside leans toward video-first production with a producer-style live control room, while Zencastr leans toward a leaner, audio-first workflow.

Do both record locally to avoid internet dropout problems?

Yes. This is the core feature both platforms are built around. Each participant's audio and video is captured on their own device and uploaded afterward, so a shaky internet connection during the call doesn't degrade the final recording quality the way a plain video call would.

Can I switch between them later?

Yes, neither locks your existing episodes into a proprietary format that can't be exported. Downloaded local recordings are standard audio/video files you can import into any editor regardless of which platform you started with.

Comparison

Riverside vs. Zencastr

Both record every remote guest locally in high quality, sidestepping the internet-dropout problem that plagues a plain video call. Here's where they actually differ.

Category	Riverside	Zencastr
Core focus	Video-first, producer-style live control room	Audio-first, leaner recording workflow
Local recording	Yes, per-participant	Yes, per-participant
Built-in editing	Web-based editor with AI-assisted clipping	Web-based editor with clip and soundboard tools
Live streaming	Direct multi-platform streaming from the studio	Streaming support on higher tiers
Transcription	Included on paid tiers	Included on paid tiers
Free tier	Limited recording time per month	Limited recording time per month
Best for	Video podcasts and YouTube-first shows	Audio-first podcasters who want a simpler tool

Riverside, Strengths

Strong video production features for camera-forward shows
Live "studio" control room for producers managing multiple guests
Good AI-assisted highlight clip generation for social cuts

Zencastr, Strengths

Simpler, faster setup for audio-only shows
Built-in soundboard for jingles and sound effects during recording
Historically positioned closer to the podcasting-first audience

The Verdict

Choose Riverside if video is a first-class output for your show. You're publishing to YouTube, cutting vertical clips for social, or want a producer-style live control room during recording.

Choose Zencastr if you're primarily audio-first and want the simplest possible path from "hit record" to a clean multitrack file, without needing heavy video production tools.

Both are legitimate choices for a new podcast. The current pricing and feature tiers change often enough that it's worth checking each platform's own site for the latest plan details before committing.

For a wider view including session-codec tools built for professional voice-over and ADR work (not just podcast interviews), see the full Remote Recording Apps comparison, which also covers Squadcast, StudioLink, Source-Connect, and more.

Once you've picked a platform, the How to Record a Remote Podcast Guest guide walks through the double-ender recording technique both platforms are built around, and the Podcast Distributor Selector helps you choose where to publish once you're done.

Which suits your show

The real question is whether you publish video. A video-first platform gives you a producer's view, live control and higher resolution capture, all of which cost nothing if you use them and add friction if you do not. An audio-first platform does less and asks less of everybody involved.

Guest friction is the factor most likely to decide this, and it is rarely considered. Every additional step between an invitation and a recording is somewhere a guest gets stuck, and you will spend that time yourself, in the first ten minutes of a session you are paying for. Test the actual guest experience on an unfamiliar computer before committing.

Understand what local recording does and does not guarantee. Both platforms record each participant on their own machine, so a poor connection affects the live conversation and not the final quality. Those files still have to upload afterwards, which means a guest closing their laptop immediately after saying goodbye can take part of your episode with them.

Built-in editing suits some workflows and not others. Editing where you recorded is genuinely faster for a show with a repeatable format and light post-production. If you already work in an editor you know well, the built-in tools are a step you will skip, and the platform becomes a recorder you are paying extra for.

Whichever you choose, ask guests to record a local backup as well. It costs them one click, and it is the difference between a technical failure being an inconvenience and being a lost episode. No platform is reliable enough to make this precaution unnecessary.

Vocabulary

Local recording. Capturing each participant's audio and video on their own computer rather than over the connection. Means call quality problems do not affect the finished recording, provided the files upload successfully afterwards.

Double-ender. The traditional version of the same idea, where each participant records themselves separately and sends the file. Reliable and manual, and what these platforms automate.

Progressive upload. Uploading recorded files during the session rather than all at once at the end. Reduces the chance of losing material when a participant leaves immediately after finishing.

Producer view. An interface letting the host see levels, connection quality and recording status for every participant during the session. The difference between catching a problem live and discovering it in the edit.