FWIW, the .com version of our domain is in a completely different field, and so there's zero risk of confusion between the two domains.
If I couldn't get a .com I would probably aim for something other than .net maybe, .io or .co. But that's me.
I will also tell you that if I don't remember the other than .com extension, I will try .net or .org. So, .net is not a bad choice, if that's all you can get. That also speaks to a problem. If your site becomes very popular then people will use the .com or .org to troll you or to take advantage of the traffic your .net generates. For years whitehouse.com was a porn site. The owners were taking advantage of the traffic the .gov version generated. That went on for a long time, I don't know why it took so long to change it. I wonder how many kids got trapped in that situation?
For specific countries, having a country code TLD as well can avoid confusion (is it .com or .co.uk? Both/either!) and increase confidence of local support and/or regulatory compliance.
.io can work for API-based service businesses, or (oddly) games.
.net can work for ISPs, Telcos, etc, although generally again in tandem with the .com.
The rest of the TLD explosion is basically a scam, predicated on companies buying the MyCo. Just spend the money on the .com if you have to, or make sure you pick a company name that has an available .com and social media accounts. It's easily worth it to lock in the right name.
Maybe the situation is different in the US. But, here in Europe, we have a load of separate TLDs. So I don't think there's the same instinct that a domain name that doesn't end in .COM is in any way 'inferior' or 2nd choice.
But since your company owns the both versions then that stands settled.
Just out of curiosity, won't users be confused if you have 2 products for different fields sharing same names one on .com and another on .net?