Video Conferencing
alfaview
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by alfaview GmbH · alfaview.com
Compare with Microsoft Teams → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
alfaview is a German video-conferencing product licensed per room rather than per participant. The bench scores it highest on the meeting itself, sovereignty and pricing transparency, lowest on encryption & meeting access and integrations, while recordings, retention & admin control spans 2-4. Pricing is unusually computable: 1/3.90/9.90 € per room per month excl. VAT at annual billing, with published capacities of 100/300/500 participants. The sovereignty pitch sits on the vendor's own pages — German hosting and datacenters, ISO 27001 for alfaview and its datacenters, a BSI label, and a stated non-application of the CLOUD Act — but no subprocessor list is published and the pipeline marks residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed. Encryption is BSI-guideline TLS for transport and server disks with vendor-held keys; no end-to-end encryption, lobby or host admission control is evidenced. The genuine split is recordings, retention & admin control: judges at 4 credit documented minimisation (no stored session streams, chat or screen transfer; local recording), judges at 2 point to absent notification, consent, retention and admin policy.
Speaks for it
- Public per-room pricing — 1/3.90/9.90 € per month excl. VAT at annual billing (One/Professional/Premium) with capacities of 100/300/500 participants and combinable rooms.
- Sovereignty claims on the vendor's own pages: German hosting and datacenters, ISO 27001 for alfaview and its datacenters, a BSI IT-Sicherheitskennzeichen, and a stated non-application of the CLOUD Act.
- Documented data minimisation: no server-side storage of session streams, chat or screen transfer, local recording included, and transcription data pledged not to train speech models.
- Scale published per plan: 50 breakout rooms per room, simultaneous screen sharing, polling and a whiteboard, plus unlimited streaming viewers and live streaming to your own server.
- Broad joining options: four browsers, apps for seven platforms including Linux and Web, public test rooms without registration, and a 30-day trial (alfaview Free 500 Special, once per organisation).
Held against it
- No end-to-end encryption or key-handling documentation evidenced — BSI-guideline TLS covers transport and server disks with vendor-held keys.
- No lobby, per-meeting passcode or host-controlled admission evidenced, and two-factor authentication is account-level rather than meeting access.
- Thin integrations: only Outlook/Microsoft 365 plus an undocumented API and MSI packages — no SSO (SAML/OIDC), SCIM, webhooks, SDK, room systems or self-hosting evidenced.
- Recording governance undocumented: nothing on who may record, notification or consent, retention, or admin policy, and the attendance list has no evidenced off-switch.
- Add-ons unpriced: phone dial-in, more than 500 participants per room and the private streaming platform carry no public rate, and Enterprise is on request.
Best for
- You need an invoice you can compute before contacting sales — per-room licences at 1/3.90/9.90 € per month excl. VAT with published per-room capacity.
- Your procurement wants a German contracting entity (alfaview GmbH, Karlsruhe, Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 730903) and German hosting claims, accepting that residency and subprocessor exposure are unconfirmed in the evidence.
- You run large webinars or classes where 50 breakout rooms per room, unlimited streaming viewers and polling matter more than SSO-based identity integration.
- You want recordings and session data kept off vendor storage — local recording with no server-side session storage.
Avoid if
- You need end-to-end encryption, host admission control (lobby, per-meeting passcodes) or documented key handling for sensitive meetings.
- Your organisation depends on SSO (SAML/OIDC), SCIM provisioning, room systems or a self-hosted option — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must enforce recording notification, consent or retention rules organisation-wide.
- You need live captions or an accessibility statement, or predictable phone dial-in costs — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
The meeting itself
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the call works: participant capacity, video and audio quality under load, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation, and what happens on a bad connection.
0 — Small meetings only, no screen sharing worth the name, no moderation controls, and the call degrades without telling anyone.
3 — Standard meetings with screen sharing and mute-all, but low participant limits, no breakout rooms and no bandwidth adaptation stated.
5 — Meetings at the scale most teams need with screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, and documented behaviour on constrained connections.
8 — Large meetings and webinars with published capacity limits, per-participant moderation and waiting rooms, layout control, simulcast or adaptive bitrate stated, and reliable behaviour on mobile networks.
10 — Scale and control are engineering claims the vendor stands behind: capacity published per plan and per region, selective forwarding with adaptive quality documented, live streaming, hardware-room support, and diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call.
The IT Administrator
Published capacity I respect: 100/300/500 participants per room across plans, 50 breakout rooms per room, simultaneous screen sharing, polling and whiteboard. But the evidence is silent on host moderation, waiting rooms, adaptive bitrate, hardware rooms and post-call diagnostics, and I judge a product by its worst meeting — when the board call stutters there is nothing documented about degradation and nothing to read afterwards. 1 3
The Security Officer
Capacity is published per tier (100/300/500 per room) with 50 breakout rooms, simultaneous screen sharing, polling and whiteboard — that clears what most teams need. But the evidence is silent on host moderation, waiting rooms, and behaviour on a constrained connection; I cannot tell you who can be ejected from a call or whether it degrades gracefully. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
Capacity is published per plan (100/300/500 per room, streaming unlimited), 50 breakout rooms and simultaneous screen sharing are real. But the evidence is silent on host moderation controls, waiting rooms and what happens on a constrained connection — no mute-all, no adaptive behaviour documented — so it sits at the anchor it matches, not above. 1 3
The Educator
Capacity is published per plan (100/300/500), breakout rooms at fifty per room, simultaneous screen sharing, polling and a whiteboard cover my classroom basics. But the evidence says nothing about mute-all or any host moderation, no waiting room, and not one word on what happens when half my class joins on a phone in a dead spot — the 5 anchor's documented behaviour on constrained connections simply isn't there. 1 3
The Accessibility Advocate
Published per-room capacities up to 500, unlimited webinar streaming, 50 breakout rooms and simultaneous screen sharing is genuine scale. But the evidence is silent on waiting rooms, mute-all and per-participant moderation, and says nothing about behaviour on a bad connection — a dropped call my people cannot diagnose is a dropped call. 3 1
The Skeptic
Capacity is published per plan (100/300/500 per room, >500 as a bookable add-on) with 50 breakout rooms per room and simultaneous screen sharing — that clears rubric level 5 on scale and features. But nowhere does the evidence evidence moderation controls, a waiting room, adaptive bitrate, or what happens on a bad connection, which caps it well below 8. 1 3
Encryption & meeting access
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What is actually encrypted and against whom, plus who can get into a meeting. Judged on documented mechanism rather than on the word "encrypted".
0 — Transport encryption only, undocumented; meetings joinable by anyone with a link and no lobby.
3 — TLS in transit and encryption at rest, with the vendor holding all keys; access control is a passcode.
5 — The above plus a lobby or waiting room, host-controlled admission, per-meeting passcodes, and a clear statement that the vendor can technically access media.
8 — Optional end-to-end encryption for meetings with the trade-offs named (which features stop working), documented key handling, SSO-gated joining, and per-meeting access policies.
10 — End-to-end encryption available without surrendering the product — its cryptography documented or open source, key management explained, identity verification for participants, and the vendor stating plainly what it can and cannot see.
The IT Administrator
The mechanism is at least named: BSI-guideline TLS for data, transport and server disks, ISO 27001, two-factor authentication, and closed temporary meeting rooms. No end-to-end encryption, no lobby or host-admission controls, no key handling documented — the only candour is a legal claim that US authorities cannot get in, which says nothing about what alfaview itself can technically see. 1 2 3
The Security Officer
"Verschlüsselung nach BSI-Richtlinien (TLS)" for data, transport and server disks is the entire story — no end-to-end encryption, no key handling, no statement of what the vendor can technically see. Public test rooms admit anyone without registration and no lobby, passcode or host admission control is evidenced anywhere, so meeting access rests on link possession; the "US backdoor access impossible" claim is marketing, not mechanism. 1 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
TLS for transport plus encryption of server disks per BSI guidelines is transport-and-at-rest with the vendor on the key path; there is no E2EE, no key handling documentation, no lobby or per-meeting access policy anywhere in the evidence. The claim that US authorities cannot access via backdoors is a promise, not a mechanism, and 2FA is account-level, not meeting-level access control. 1 2 3
The Educator
Encryption is TLS transport and at-rest per BSI guidelines with the vendor running the servers, plus ISO 27001 and two-factor auth for accounts. But no end-to-end option, no key handling statement, and — what I need before strangers meet my learners — no evidence of a lobby, passcode or host-controlled admission at all, so it cannot clear the 5 anchor. 1 3
The Accessibility Advocate
Encryption is TLS per BSI guidelines plus at-rest server disk encryption — transport-plus-at-rest with the vendor holding the keys. No end-to-end option, no lobby or host-controlled admission, no per-meeting passcode (two-factor login is account security, not meeting access), and no plain statement of what alfaview can technically see in the media path. 1 3 2
The Skeptic
What is documented is BSI-guideline TLS for transport plus encryption of server disks — vendor-held keys, no end-to-end encryption claimed anywhere, no key handling, no per-meeting passcode or lobby. I credit 2FA and the 'closed temporary meeting rooms' capability slightly over rubric level 3, but no sentence says which meetings are encrypted against whom. 1 2 3
Reach & accessibility
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether everyone who needs to join can: browser without an install, dial-in, low bandwidth, guests without accounts, captions and keyboard operation.
0 — A desktop client is the only way in; guests must create an account.
3 — Browser joining exists but is degraded, guests can join by link, and there is no dial-in and no accessibility statement.
5 — Full-feature browser joining without an install, guest access by link, mobile apps, and a stated accessibility posture.
8 — Telephone dial-in with numbers listed, live captions, keyboard-navigable and screen-reader-tested interface, and documented low-bandwidth behaviour.
10 — Reach is designed for: browser parity with the client, dial-in across the regions the customer operates in, live captions and translation, a published accessibility conformance report, and a usable experience on a poor mobile connection.
The IT Administrator
Real reach on paper: seven platforms including Linux, four browsers, guest test rooms with no registration, and 50 hours of live translation per month included. But phone dial-in is an unpriced add-on with no numbers listed, and there is no caption, keyboard-navigation, screen-reader or accessibility-statement evidence anywhere in the evidence. 1 3
The Security Officer
Browser joining in Edge/Chrome/Firefox/Safari plus apps on every platform is real, and dial-in exists but as an unpriced add-on with no numbers listed. No captions, no accessibility statement, no low-bandwidth documentation; the only no-registration joining evidenced is their public test rooms, so guest access to real meetings is unconfirmed. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
Browser joining across four browsers, web and mobile platforms, and test rooms usable without any registration make the basics reachable. But dial-in is only an add-on with no numbers listed, there is no accessibility statement, no keyboard/screen-reader evidence, no low-bandwidth behaviour, and captions are never confirmed — only live translation, 50 hours for the first license. 1 3
The Educator
Browser joining across Edge, Chrome, Firefox and Safari, apps for every platform including Web, and public test rooms enterable without an account or registration keep part of the no-install, no-guest-account promise. But dial-in is only an unpriced add-on with no numbers listed, there is no accessibility statement, no captions mentioned (only a promise not to train models on transcription data), and nothing about low bandwidth — below rubric level 5, above 3. 1 3
The Accessibility Advocate
Browser joining in four browsers, apps on every platform, and a dial-in add-on are the bones of real reach, and registration-free test rooms exist. But there is not one word on live captions, keyboard operation, screen-reader testing or a conformance report — 'live translation' into selected languages is not captioning — and dial-in numbers are not listed. For my deaf colleague this sheet offers nothing at all, which caps it. 3 1
The Skeptic
Browser joining across four browsers, apps for every major platform, guests in test rooms without an account, and dial-in — but dial-in is an unpriced add-on with no numbers listed, and live translation (50 h/month) is not captions. There is no accessibility statement, no keyboard/screen-reader evidence and no low-bandwidth documentation at all, so it sits between rubric level 3 and 5. 1 3
Recordings, retention & admin control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
A recording is personal data about everyone in the room. Who may record, who is told, where it is stored, how long it lives, and what the works council can switch off.
0 — Anyone can record, storage location unstated, no retention rule, no admin policy.
3 — Host-only recording with a notification, but storage region unstated, retention manual, and no organisation-wide policy control.
5 — Admin policy over who may record, participant notification and consent prompt, stated storage region, and manual deletion that works.
8 — Automatic retention and deletion per policy, recordings encrypted at rest with access logged, transcription handled with its own retention rule, and attendance or analytics features that can be switched off for co-determination.
10 — Built for a works agreement: every recording, transcript and analytics feature independently switchable and documented, retention executed and evidenced, an audit trail of who accessed which recording, and no participant-level behavioural scoring at all.
The IT Administrator
Recording is local and live sessions are not stored server-side, which sidesteps vendor retention. But nothing states who may record, whether participants are notified or consented, or what an admin can switch off — the attendance list exists with no evidenced off-switch, so a works council has nothing to negotiate over. 1 3
The Security Officer
The data-minimisation is genuine: live streams, chat and screen shares are not stored at all, recordings are local, and transcripts are promised not to train speech models. But the governance layer is a void — nothing on who may record, whether participants are notified, retention rules or organisation-wide policies; a works council has nothing to switch off because nothing is documented. 1 3
The Works Council Advocate
The minimisation story is genuinely good: alfaview stores no session streams, chat or screen transfer, recordings are local, and temporary rooms auto-delete. But there is not one word on recording notification or consent, no admin policy over who may record, no retention rule for transcripts (only that they aren't used for training), and an attendance list feature with no evidence it can be switched off for co-determination — a surveillance feature with no off-switch documented. 1 3
The Educator
Recording is local-only and the vendor stores nothing from a running session — streams, chat, screen shares — which keeps my learners' data off someone else's disk. But there is no evidence of who may record, whether participants are told, any retention rule, or any admin policy control; the evidence is silent on almost everything this criterion needs, and by the anchors that silence scores near the bottom. 1 3
The Accessibility Advocate
Local recording is included in every tier with no host-only rule, no notification or consent prompt, no retention policy and no organisation-wide switch evidenced. The only mitigations are that alfaview stores no session streams server-side and pledges not to train speech models on transcription data — promises, not governance. 3 1
The Skeptic
Recording is local-only and included, which at least means no vendor-held recording storage to govern, and transcription data is pledged not to train models. But nothing says who may record, whether participants are notified, what retention applies, or that any admin policy or works-council switch exists — the evidence is silent on every governance mechanism the criterion asks for. 1 3
Integrations & deployment
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Calendar, identity and the wider stack — plus, in this category, whether the product can be run on the customer's own infrastructure at all.
0 — No calendar integration, no SSO, no API; cloud-only with no alternative.
3 — One calendar integration and basic SSO, no API worth building on, cloud-only.
5 — Calendar integration for the major suites, SAML or OIDC SSO, a documented API for scheduling, and room-system support.
8 — The above plus SCIM provisioning, embedding via SDK, webhooks for meeting events, and either a self-hosted option or a documented private-cloud deployment.
10 — Deployment is the customer's choice: a genuine on-premises or private-cloud option with the same features, open protocols or open source, embeddable SDKs, and identity integration that does not require the vendor's directory.
The IT Administrator
Outlook/M365 integration, an API included in every plan, and MSI packages for managed rollout are the working bones of enterprise deployment. But there is no SSO at all in the evidence — no SAML, OIDC or SCIM — no room systems, no SDK, no webhooks and no self-hosted option; that is thin identity integration for a product selling 500-participant rooms. 3
The Security Officer
One calendar suite (Outlook/M365), an "API Ja, inkludiert" with no documentation behind it, MSI packages and 2FA. No SSO, no SCIM, no webhooks, no room systems and no self-hosted option — identity integration stays in the vendor's world and deployment is cloud-only. 3
The Works Council Advocate
One calendar suite (Outlook/Microsoft 365), an API listed as 'included' without any documented depth, MSI packages and streaming to your own server. Critically, no SSO — SAML or OIDC — is evidenced at all, no SCIM, no webhooks, no room systems, and live-streaming to your own server is not running the product on your own infrastructure. 3
The Educator
Outlook/M365 integration is included, an API is claimed included, MSI packages exist for managed rollout, and live streaming to your own server is possible. But no SSO/SAML/OIDC anywhere, no SCIM, webhooks or SDK, no Google Calendar, and no self-hosted option — cloud-only with one calendar and an undocumented API is the 3 anchor almost exactly. 3
The Accessibility Advocate
Outlook integration, an included API and MSI packages for managed Windows deployment get it past the basics. But there is no SAML/OIDC SSO, no SCIM, no SDK, no webhooks, no room-system support, and it is cloud-only — streaming to your own server is not self-hosting the product. 3
The Skeptic
One calendar integration (Outlook/Microsoft 365 only), an API marked 'included' without any documentation of what it exposes, MSI packages, and streaming to the customer's own server. No SSO/SAML/OIDC, no SCIM, no webhooks, no SDK, no room systems and no self-hosted option are evidenced — above rubric level 3 for the API and deployment aids, far below 8. 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where media and metadata are processed, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors carry the traffic. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it — which in this category is heavily.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, media routed through unstated regions, subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency for storage while media relays or metadata remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.
5 — EU hosting and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — relays, analytics, support tooling, transcription — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — Media and metadata processed in the EU on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: media never leaves the EU, every subprocessor European, certification published, and an on-premises option that removes the question entirely.
The IT Administrator
German hosting and datacenters, a Karlsruhe contracting entity (HRB Mannheim 730903), ISO 27001 for alfaview and its datacenters, and a public no-CLOUD-Act statement. But the sovereignty pipeline could not independently confirm residency, ownership or subprocessors, no subprocessor list is published, and "Rechenzentren in Deutschland" names no actual infrastructure — in a category I weigh heavily, marketed sovereignty is not published sovereignty. 1 4 3
The Security Officer
The German story is consistent: alfaview GmbH registered in Karlsruhe (HRB 730903), German datacentres, ISO 27001 and a BSI label claimed. But no subprocessor list is published, the pipeline could not confirm residency, and the imprint quietly reveals alfatraining GmbH as technical provider of the website — the chain is asserted, not laid out. 1 2 4 3
The Works Council Advocate
German contracting entity (alfaview GmbH, Karlsruhe, HRB Mannheim), German datacenters, ISO 27001, the BSI security label, an included AVV and a CLOUD Act exemption claim are the real substance of the pitch. But no subprocessor list is published, the datacenters aren't named, and the independent pipeline could not confirm residency or ownership — '100% DSGVO' is a label, not an evidenced chain. 1 2 4 3
The Educator
German hosting in German datacenters, a German contracting entity (alfaview GmbH, Karlsruhe, HRB 730903 Mannheim), ISO 27001 and a BSI label, with the vendor stating the CLOUD Act does not apply. But the pipeline marks residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed, and no subprocessor list or named infrastructure is published anywhere in the evidence — a solid 5, and I weigh this category heavily enough not to go higher on silence. 1 2 4 3
The Accessibility Advocate
German hosting, a German contracting entity with a Mannheim register entry, and a plain claim that the CLOUD Act finds no application. But the datacenters are unnamed, no subprocessor list exists anywhere in the evidence, and the pipeline itself flags residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed — claims I like, but for a buyer who weighs this heavily, unverified claims do not reach the top anchors. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The imprint gives a German contracting entity (alfaview GmbH, Karlsruhe, HRB 730903 Mannheim), the homepage claims German datacenters with ISO 27001 and a BSI label, and the CLOUD Act claim is stated plainly. But no subprocessor is ever named, the datacenter infrastructure is unnamed, ownership is unknown — and the sovereignty pipeline itself could not confirm residency or jurisdiction from captured pages — so rubric level 8's published subprocessor list and named infrastructure are simply absent. 1 2 4
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual invoice for their host count — including the capacity, dial-in and recording storage they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-host headline exists, but participant caps, dial-in minutes or recording storage are unpriced or unmentioned.
5 — Per-host prices public with billing period stated and capacity limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (webinar capacity, dial-in, storage) sits in an unpriced add-on.
8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with per-host maths, capacity limits, dial-in rates, storage allowances, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: a calculator producing the annual invoice for a given host count, meeting size and recording volume, including overage and per-region dial-in.
The IT Administrator
Per-room prices and capacity are public — 1/3.90/9.90 EUR ex-VAT annual, 100/300/500 participants per room, combinable rooms, payment methods and the 16.67% annual saving all stated. But every add-on I would actually need — phone dial-in, more than 500 participants, the private streaming platform — is "zubuchbar" with no price, and Enterprise is on request, so I cannot compute the annual invoice from public pages alone. 3
The Security Officer
Three tiers with EUR/month figures, VAT excluded, billing periods, and per-room capacity published — and rooms are licensed per capacity rather than per head, which makes the maths simple. Dial-in and >500-participant rooms sit in unpriced add-ons and enterprise is "Auf Anfrage": computable for a standard deployment, not for one that needs the phone or the big room. 3
The Works Council Advocate
The per-room model is unusually computable: three tiers priced at 1/3.90/9.90 EUR per month excl. VAT with billing period, savings, capacity per room, combinable rooms and payment methods all public. But dial-in, the >500-participant option and the streaming platform are add-ons without public prices, and enterprise is 'on request' — no dial-in rates, no calculator, so the invoice is only computable for the core rooms. 3
The Educator
Three tiers priced publicly (€1 / €3.90 / €9.90 excl. VAT, annual), per-room rather than per-participant licensing, capacity per room stated, billing periods and payment methods given, plus a 30-day trial. It misses the top because dial-in, >500 participants, streaming platform and support are add-ons with no price attached and Enterprise is on request — a buyer still cannot compute the full annual invoice from public pages. 3
The Accessibility Advocate
Per-room prices with per-room capacities, VAT treatment, billing periods and an annual discount are all public, and local recordings mean no storage line-item. But dial-in, the >500-participant step, support and the streaming platform all sit in unpriced add-ons — and an unpriced dial-in hits exactly the people on no usable connection whom I represent. 3
The Skeptic
Per-room prices are public (1/3,90/9,90 € excl. VAT, annual), the licensing model per room rather than per participant is explained, capacity per room is stated, and local recording means no storage line item. But dial-in is 'zubuchbar' with no rate, >500 participants is an unpriced add-on, and enterprise is on request — I can compute the room invoice, not a single dial-in minute, which is rubric level 5 exactly. 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 5 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 11 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Self-declaration on the vendor's own security page, though corroborated by the all-German data-center addresses in the DPA's subprocessor list (S6).
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 35 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 20 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 12 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (16)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage alfaview.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy alfaview.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing alfaview.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Imprint alfaview.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page alfaview.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Data processing agreement (dpa) alfaview.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 The meeting itself — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 The meeting itself — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 16 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap support.alfaview.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →