Short answer
Choose by the job, not the brand. TeamViewer is a widely deployed, cross-platform remote access tool built for attended and unattended support across mixed Windows, Linux, macOS, and mobile fleets, so it fits help desks that must reach many machines and operating systems. Remote Comp is narrower on purpose: it is phone-native remote control for supported Mac workflows, pairing a Mac menu bar host with an iPhone or iPad controller while keeping setup, permissions, route state, and limitations visible. Pick Remote Comp when the job is operating your own trusted Mac from your phone and you want the permission and route boundary in plain sight. Pick TeamViewer when you need broad cross-platform coverage or a Windows or Linux host, which Remote Comp does not provide. On speed, only trust a route-scoped latency check on the exact path you will use, because one local-network benchmark is evidence for that run and not a universal claim.
Start with the job, not the brand
Name the host, the controller, the route, and the first task before you compare tools. If the work is operating one trusted Mac from your own phone, a narrow phone-to-Mac tool usually fits better than a broad fleet product. If the work is reaching many machines across operating systems for a help desk, a general cross-platform tool usually fits better. Deciding on the concrete job keeps the comparison honest and avoids picking a category winner that does not match what you actually need to do this week.
What TeamViewer is built for
TeamViewer sits in the general remote access category. At a durable level it supports attended and unattended sessions across Windows, Linux, macOS, and mobile platforms, and it is widely deployed for IT support and cross-platform fleets. That breadth is the point: it is designed to reach a large, mixed set of endpoints. We intentionally avoid quoting its pricing or perishable feature details here, because those change and are not ours to certify. The durable takeaway is that TeamViewer is the broader, cross-platform choice when reach across operating systems is the requirement.
What Remote Comp is built for, and where it stops
Remote Comp is phone-native remote control for supported Mac workflows, not a general cross-platform remote desktop. The host is a Mac running the menu bar agent, and the controller is an iPhone, iPad, or browser paired intentionally from that Mac. There is no Windows or Linux host, unattended fleet management is out of scope, and only supported workflows are in scope. The trade is deliberate: a smaller surface with setup, permissions, route state, and limitations kept visible, which suits controlling your own Mac from your phone rather than administering many machines you do not sit at.
Compare route state and speed honestly
Remote Comp routes are Local Network when the devices can reach each other directly and Private Mesh for trusted away-from-desk paths, and the route state is shown before you depend on it. Any speed comparison should be route-scoped and tied to a benchmark on the exact path you will use, not a blanket promise that one tool is faster everywhere. Test the route you plan to run, keep the tested conditions attached to the result, and treat a single local-network measurement as evidence for that run rather than proof about every network, device, or competitor. If a tool cannot show you which route it is using, you cannot reason about its latency, and that visibility is part of what you are comparing.
What it looks like
