Why place a communication site under /teams or /sites - does it matter?

[Nina Torjesen]

First, for me it would be natural to place all Group sites under /teams and all Communication sites under /sites. However, in the SharePoint Online admin settings you have to choose one option for both. 

Our organisation have chosen /teams as the URL for new Groups/ComSites. Is there any difference in functionality depending on what URL is chosen - or is it just that - a different URL. For example when connecting a new ComSite to a HUB, does it matter if the ComSite is placed behind /teams or /sites?

[#2]

I don't think it should matter. We also prefer to use the "teams" managed path for formal team sites (classic), and the "sites" managed path for everything else non-teamy.

But, strangely enough Microsoft decided to force "sites" for all new shiny modern team sites, communication sites, and hub portals! You can't even change that from the UI? Can you?

[#3]

You can choose path (see image) but although the label says "for groups" the setting also includes Communication sites. That means we cannot have separate managed paths for Office 365 Groups and Communication sites. But if it does not matter in regards to functionality - although it  occupies URLs so that you cannot have a Group and ComSite with same name. This can be a problem as we create "intranet" using ComSites and would like to add a Team (+ Office 365 Group automatically) for the same departement.

[#4]

Ahh.. that. I forgot about that because we turned off self-service site creation for all users long back, hence that option doesn't show up, and all sites provisioned via group creation are on the "sites" managed path for us.

However, paths are only urls and have no functional utility apart from organising cleanly the types of sites.

Yes. I agree with you. That verbiage is highly confusing, and that separating out communication sites from team sites will help re-using names.