Video Conferencing
BigBlueButton
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by BigBlueButton Inc. · bigbluebutton.org
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
BigBlueButton is an open-source virtual classroom whose strongest scores are in reach and accessibility — a flat 7 — resting on a WCAG 2.0 Level AA statement validated in September 2023 by external CPWA expert David Berman, JAWS screen-reader support, live closed captions, and one-click browser joining without accounts. Integrations follow at 6-7, built on core status in Moodle 4.0, Premium Moodle Integration status, over 20,000 registered Moodle sites and adoption by Canvas, Sakai, D2L, Jenzabar and Schoology. The weakest scores are sovereignty at 1-3 and encryption and access at 2-4: the privacy policy names BigBlueButton Inc. of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Google Analytics, and servers that 'may be hosted by a third party service provider', and we found no public information on data residency, subprocessors, what is encrypted or who holds keys; the sovereignty range reflects the weight given to open-source self-hosting against those facts. Recording governance holds at 4, and the only published offer is free Moodle 4.0 hosting from Blindside Networks, capped at 25 users, 60-minute sessions and 7-day recordings.
Speaks for it
- Reach and accessibility scores hold at 7, on a WCAG 2.0 Level AA statement validated in September 2023 by external CPWA expert David Berman with its exceptions named.
- Live closed captions work by three routes — browser speech recognition, Chrome Live Caption, self-captioning at join — with a per-viewer CC toggle, plus JAWS screen-reader support and keyboard-only operation.
- Integrations scores run 6-7 on built-in Moodle 4.0 integration, Premium Moodle Integration status, over 20,000 registered Moodle sites, and Canvas, Sakai, D2L, Jenzabar and Schoology.
- The software is open source and self-hostable, with the pages stating any school can easily set up its own server — the route credited for keeping media on the customer's own infrastructure.
- Meeting mechanics are documented to working limits — up to 8 breakout rooms, a moderator-reviewed lobby with three guest policies, per-participant permissions — for meeting core scores of 5-6.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 1-3: the contracting entity is BigBlueButton Inc. at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and we found no public information on where hosted media or metadata are processed, beyond Google Analytics and servers that 'may be hosted by a third party service provider'.
- Encryption and access scored 2-4: we found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, key handling or end-to-end encryption, and the privacy policy offers only 'reasonable administrative, technical and physical measures'.
- Recording governance scored 4: we found no public information on participant notification or consent, storage region, or retention beyond the free tier's 7-day expiry, and the privacy policy warns archived information may be impossible to delete.
- The Learning Analytics Dashboard assigns each student a relative activity score, with no public information on a switch-off — raised as a works-council concern.
- We found no public information on published participant capacity, adaptive bitrate, behaviour on constrained connections, telephone dial-in or mobile apps.
Best for
- You run Moodle and want live classes inside the LMS, with participants joining in one click from a browser.
- You must meet documented accessibility obligations (WCAG 2.0 Level AA, EN 301 549) for deaf, hard-of-hearing or screen-reader users.
- You have the staff to self-host open-source software and want meetings on infrastructure you control.
- Your teaching leans on small-group work — up to 8 breakout rooms with self-selection and moderator invitations.
Avoid if
- You require a European contracting entity and a named subprocessor list for the hosted service.
- Your works council has ruled out participant-level activity scoring.
- Your security sign-off requires documented encryption of media in transit and at rest, with named key holders.
- You need to cost paid hosting from published prices before talking to providers.
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
Breakout rooms up to eight, guest-lobby admission with moderator review, per-participant lock permissions, presenting policies and a mute on the active speaker are all documented in the moderator guides, so the everyday meeting mechanics are real. I judge by the worst meeting, and here I found no public information on published capacity per plan or region, adaptive bitrate behaviour on constrained connections, webinar-scale control, hardware room systems, or diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call. 2 4 5 9
The Security Officer
Breakout rooms and moderation are genuinely well documented — up to eight rooms with random assignment, per-user actions, a lobby with three guest policies, participant permission locks, and mute of the active speaker — alongside screen sharing and selectable video quality. What is missing is scale and resilience: no published capacity limits beyond a free offering's 25 users, and we found no public information on documented behaviour on constrained connections. 2 4 5 9 11
The Works Council Advocate
Breakout rooms up to eight, a lobby where guests wait until a moderator reviews them, per-participant permissions with visible lock notices, and mute of the active speaker give a chairperson genuine control of the room. We found no public information on published participant capacity, adaptive video quality, or how a call behaves on a constrained connection, which is what keeps this out of the top band. 2 4 5 9
The Educator
Breakout rooms are documented in real depth — up to eight rooms, self-selection, late-joiner invitations, messaging every room, and whiteboard and shared notes saved out as PDF — which is what I need for thirty restless adults. Moderation is likewise concrete: a moderator-reviewed lobby, per-participant permission locks, a presenting policy, and muting from the user list. But we found no public information on published capacity limits, adaptive quality, or what happens to a call on a bad mobile connection, and that silence is exactly where half my class lives. 2 4 5 9
The Accessibility Advocate
Breakout rooms are real and richly governed — up to eight rooms, random or self-select assignment, moderator invitations — alongside per-user moderation (promote, remove, make presenter), participant-permission locking that tells participants when it takes effect, and a lobby with moderator review. I found no public information on published participant capacity, adaptive bitrate or low-bandwidth behaviour, or what happens on a mobile network, so the call's behaviour under strain rests on faith. 2 4 5 9
The Skeptic
Breakout rooms are documented down to the working limits — up to 8 rooms, random or self-select assignment, duration that closes rooms automatically, invited late joiners — and moderation is real: per-user promote, remove and mute, affirmative participant permissions, presenting policy, and a lobby where arrivals wait for moderator review. What I could not find is a published participant capacity for the software itself, any statement of adaptive bitrate or simulcast, or what happens to a call on a constrained connection; the low/medium/high video setting is a user choice, not an adaptation. 4 5 2
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
Access control is genuinely documented — guest policies with a lobby pending moderator review, and SAML sign-in for Personal Rooms tested against Shibboleth and Azure AD, though flagged as beta. On the cryptography itself we found no public information on transport or end-to-end encryption, key handling, or what the operator can technically see; the privacy policy offers only a general promise of reasonable administrative, technical and physical measures. 3 5 6
The Security Officer
Meeting admission is the strong part: a lobby with always-ask, accept or deny guest policies, host-controlled admission, and SAML sign-in for the platform. But on encryption the captured pages say nothing — we found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, any end-to-end option, or key handling — and the privacy policy states the hosting collects in-session audio, chat and video, which tells me the server sees the media. 3 5 6
The Works Council Advocate
Access control is real: arrivals wait in a lobby until a moderator decides, the guest policy can turn people away outright, and an institution's SAML identity provider can gate sign-in — though it is described as beta. The privacy policy offers only 'reasonable administrative, technical and physical measures' and we found no public information on any encryption mechanism, so we cannot say what is encrypted or against whom; open source makes the code inspectable, but that is not a documented statement. 3 5 6
The Educator
Guest policy with a lobby the moderator reviews, plus SAML sign-in for Personal Rooms, are the documented access controls. The encryption story is only "reasonable administrative, technical and physical measures" — we found no public information on what is actually encrypted, key handling, end-to-end encryption, or what the operator can technically see. 3 5 6
The Accessibility Advocate
The privacy policy offers only 'reasonable administrative, technical and physical measures' — a legal phrase, not a mechanism — and I found no public information on transport or at-rest encryption, key handling, or end-to-end encryption. Admission control is better evidenced, with arrivals held in a lobby under 'Always ask moderator', 'Always accept' or 'Always deny' and beta SAML sign-in tested with Shibboleth and Azure AD, but on documented mechanism alone the encryption story is unevidenced. 3 5 6
The Skeptic
The pages document who gets in — guest policies of "Always ask moderator", "Always accept", "Always deny", moderator lobby review, and SAML sign-in for Personal Rooms, in beta, tested against Shibboleth, ClassLink and Azure AD — but I found no public information on what is encrypted, in transit or at rest, or who holds keys. The only security language on the captured pages is the privacy policy's "reasonable administrative, technical and physical measures", which is a promise, not a mechanism, and there is no end-to-end encryption statement with its feature trade-offs. 5 6 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
Accessibility is engineered rather than claimed: WCAG 2.0 Level AA conformance externally validated with named exceptions, JAWS screen-reader support, live closed captions with browser speech recognition, keyboard shortcuts, and browser joining by link without accounts. What keeps it out of the top band is that we found no public information on telephone dial-in, mobile apps, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour. 5 7 8 12
The Security Officer
Accessibility is treated seriously: a WCAG 2.0 Level AA statement validated by an external expert, dedicated JAWS screen-reader development, live closed captions from several methods, keyboard shortcuts, and browser joining without an account in a single click. We found no public information on telephone dial-in or on documented low-bandwidth behaviour, which keeps this short of the top band. 5 7 8 11
The Works Council Advocate
Accessibility is documented unusually seriously for this market: WCAG 2.0 Level AA validated by a named external expert in September 2023 with the exceptions spelled out, screen-reader work with JAWS, keyboard navigation, moderator-enabled live captions, and full browser joining with no install or external login. We found no public information on telephone dial-in or on documented behaviour on a poor connection, which is what holds it below the top band. 7 8 12
The Educator
Joining happens in a browser tab with a single click and no external login, so nobody in my class installs anything or creates an account. Live closed captions with a viewer toggle, keyboard shortcuts, JAWS screen-reader support, and an externally validated WCAG 2.0 Level AA statement with named exceptions are published. We found no public information on telephone dial-in, mobile apps, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour — the dead spots stay a gamble. 7 8 11 12
The Accessibility Advocate
Here the product earns its keep: live closed captions a moderator can enable and each viewer toggles with a CC button, three routes to captions (browser speech recognition, Chrome Live Caption, self-captioning at join), keyboard operation without a mouse, and a WCAG 2.0 Level AA conformance statement validated in September 2023 by an external CPWA expert that names its exceptions — presenter view, Shared Notes, tutorials — and JAWS screen-reader usability testing. The reach side is thinner: I found no public information on telephone dial-in, caption translation, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour, so a deaf colleague can run the class but a colleague with no usable data connection has no documented way in. 7 8 11 12
The Skeptic
Accessibility is the best-evidenced thing in the evidence: a WCAG 2.0 Level AA statement validated in September 2023 by an external CPWA expert, Section 508 and EN 301 549 coverage, JAWS screen-reader support, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and moderator-enabled live captions with per-speaker setup and a viewer CC toggle — with exceptions honestly named (Shared Notes, tutorial material, presenter view). We found no public information on telephone dial-in or mobile apps, and the low-resolution video option is the only gesture toward a poor connection. 8 7 2
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
A recording only happens when a moderator manually starts it, defaults to unlisted, and administrators get working search, rename and delete across the whole server — that part I can run. But the storage region is unstated, retention is manual, and we found no public information on participant notification or consent prompts, encryption at rest, access logging, or a policy-driven retention schedule; meanwhile the Learning Analytics Dashboard scores individual students' participation. 3 9 10 11
The Security Officer
Only moderators start and stop recordings, admins can search, rename, delete and control visibility with unlisted as default, and recording behaviour is configurable per room — but we found no public information on storage region, on retention beyond a free tier's 7-day expiry, or on any participant notification. The privacy policy's caveat that archived information may be impossible to delete, and a Learning Analytics Dashboard that scores individual students' participation with no documented switch-off, are both works-council concerns. 3 9 10 11 12
The Works Council Advocate
The bones of a works agreement exist: recording must be enabled for the meeting and started manually by a moderator, breakout rooms cannot be recorded at all, and administrators can search, rename and delete every recording on the server. But we found no public information on a participant notification or consent prompt when recording starts, no storage region, no automatic retention, and the privacy policy even warns archived data may be impossible to delete — and the Learning Analytics Dashboard scores each participant's relative activity live, with no public information on whether that scoring can be switched off. 3 4 9 10 11
The Educator
Recording is moderator-started and pausable, recordings default to unlisted with only the direct URL working, and administrators can search, rename and delete every recording on the server. But we found no public information on a participant notification or consent prompt, storage region, retention rules or access logs — and the Learning Analytics Dashboard scores participation per student with no evidenced off-switch, which a works council would want in writing. 4 9 10 11 12
The Accessibility Advocate
A recording never starts itself — a moderator must press start, can pause, and admins can search, rename, delete and set recordings unlisted-by-default, viewable only by direct URL. But I found no public information on a participant recording notification or consent prompt, storage region, a retention rule beyond one free-hosting offer's 'recordings expire after 7 days', or access logging; and the Learning Analytics Dashboard scores each student's participation, which a works council will want able to switch off. 9 10 11 12
The Skeptic
Recording cannot start by accident — enabling it at meeting creation "does not auto-capture" and a moderator must press the button, with stop and pause — and recordings default to Unlisted with access only via direct URL, while administrators can search, filter, rename and delete across the server. But we found no public information on storage region, retention beyond the free tier's "recordings expire after 7 days", encryption of stored recordings, an access log, or a consent prompt for participants; and the Learning Analytics Dashboard assigns each student a relative activity score, which is participant-level behavioural scoring by design. 9 10 11
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
Deployment really is the customer's choice — open source, set up your own server, or pick from listed commercial hosting providers — and the Moodle integration is documented down to subplugins, group rooms and 20,000 registered sites, with SAML to your own identity provider in beta. For the wider office stack, however, we found no public information on calendar integration, a scheduling API, hardware room systems, SCIM provisioning or webhooks. 1 6 11 12
The Security Officer
The deployment question gets the strongest answer available: open source, self-hosted on the customer's own servers, SAML sign-in tested against Azure AD and Shibboleth without a vendor directory, and deep integration into the major LMS platforms including built-in core support in Moodle. We found no public information on a documented API, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or calendar-suite integration in the captured pages. 1 2 6 11 12
The Works Council Advocate
Moodle 4.0 ships the integration in its core and over twenty thousand registered Moodle sites run the plugin, other LMS suites adopt it, and SAML sign-in exists in beta — but we found no public information on calendar integration with the major office suites, a documented scheduling API, or automated provisioning. The genuinely open-source self-hosted deployment, where a customer runs the server entirely on its own infrastructure, is what lifts this category. 1 6 11 12
The Educator
The Moodle integration is first-class — built into Moodle 4.0, premium plugin status, twenty thousand registered sites — with Canvas, Sakai, D2L, Jenzabar and Schoology alongside, and SAML sign-in exists though marked beta. Any school can set up its own server on open-source terms, a deployment story few can match. We found no public information on a documented API, calendar suites beyond the LMS world, SCIM provisioning, webhooks or room systems. 2 6 11 12
The Accessibility Advocate
Deployment is the customer's choice in the fullest sense — the software is open source, any institution can set up its own server, and the Moodle integration is deep: core in Moodle 4.0, Premium plugin status, plus Canvas, Sakai, D2L, Jenzabar and Schoology, with beta SAML sign-in against an institution's own identity provider. I found no public information on calendar-suite integration, a documented scheduling API, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or room-system support. 1 6 11 12
The Skeptic
Deployment is the customer's choice in the fullest sense: "Any school can easily set up their own BigBlueButton server", the software is open source, and Moodle 4.0 ships with BigBlueButton built in — over 20,000 registered Moodle sites — alongside Canvas, Sakai, D2L, Jenzabar and Schoology, with room behaviour, scheduling and recording manageable inside the LMS. SAML sign-in exists in beta; we found no public information on calendar integration for the major office suites, a documented scheduling API, SCIM provisioning, webhooks or an embeddable SDK. 1 11 12 6
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
The contracting entity is BigBlueButton Inc. at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and we found no public information on where hosted media or metadata are processed or which subprocessors carry them beyond Google Analytics on the sites. The one real mitigation for a European deployment is that the open-source product can be self-hosted on infrastructure I control, which removes the routing question even though nothing sovereign is evidenced for the vendor's own service. 1 3 11
The Security Officer
The contracting entity is BigBlueButton Inc. in Ottawa, Canada, the captured pages say servers may be hosted by a third party service provider without naming them or any region, and Google Analytics is disclosed on the sites — I found no public information on EU data residency or any subprocessor list. The only route to keeping European meetings in Europe is to run the open-source stack on your own infrastructure. 1 2 3 11
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity sits in Ottawa, Ontario, the captured pages state no data residency anywhere, the servers 'may be hosted by a third party service provider' that is never named, and Google Analytics runs on the sites. Only the install-your-own-server route lets a customer place the media in Europe by its own hand; the commercial path as published gives a non-EU entity, unnamed subprocessors, and unstated regions, and this buyer weighs that heavily. 1 3 11
The Educator
The contracting entity named in the privacy policy is BigBlueButton Inc. of Ottawa, Canada, and data residency, ownership and subprocessors for the hosted service are all unconfirmed on the captured pages, with Google Analytics running on the sites. The genuine open-source self-hosting path lets a European institution keep media on its own infrastructure, but nothing on these pages evidences a sovereign hosted chain. 1 3 11
The Accessibility Advocate
The contracting entity is BigBlueButton Inc. at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, and I found no public information on where media or metadata are processed; the privacy policy names Google Analytics and says servers 'may be hosted by a third party service provider' without naming the provider or publishing a full list. The one structural mitigation is that the software is open source and self-hostable on the customer's own EU infrastructure, but as published nothing evidences EU processing, an EU entity, or a complete subprocessor disclosure. 1 3 11
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is BigBlueButton Inc. at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario — outside the EU — and we found no public information on where media or metadata are processed or which subprocessors carry the traffic, beyond a privacy policy naming Google Analytics on the Sites and noting servers "may be hosted by a third party service provider". Self-hosting lets a customer answer the residency question for themselves, but the vendor's own captured pages evidence no EU processing, no named infrastructure and no certification. 3 2 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
The only published numbers anywhere are the free Blindside Networks hosting tier's limits — class sizes up to 25 users, 60-minute sessions, recordings expiring after 7 days — with the software itself free and open source. Commercial hosting, commercial support and any paid tiers carry no prices at all, so no buyer can compute an annual invoice from public pages; every real quote is a sales conversation with one of the listed providers. 1 11 3
The Security Officer
The only public price is zero: free Moodle 4.0 hosting from Blindside Networks with published limits of 25 users, 60-minute sessions and recordings expiring after 7 days. Everything beyond that is a conversation with third-party hosting companies; we found no public per-host prices, capacity pricing, or storage rates, so no annual invoice can be computed from the captured pages. 1 11
The Works Council Advocate
The only public price is a free hosting offer whose limits are spelled out honestly: up to 25 users, sixty-minute sessions, only the moderator's webcam visible to viewers, recordings expiring after seven days. Beyond that we found no public information on what paid hosting or commercial support costs, what capacity comes with it, or on any term or storage allowance, so a buyer cannot compute an invoice from public pages. 11
The Educator
The only published figure is a free hosting offer from Blindside Networks with stated caps: "class sizes up to 25 users", 60-minute sessions, viewers seeing only the moderator's webcam, and recordings expiring after 7 days. Beyond that, commercial hosting is a directory of providers and support is a conversation — we found no public information on per-host prices for anything larger than that free tier. 1 11
The Accessibility Advocate
The one public price is a free tier — Blindside Networks hosting for Moodle 4.0 sites with 'class sizes up to 25 users', 'maximum of 60 minutes per session', moderator-only webcam, and recordings that 'expire after 7 days'. I found no public information on per-host prices, paid tiers, capacity limits, storage allowances or dial-in rates; paid capacity routes through a 'Find Hosting' page to third-party hosts, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from public pages. 1 11
The Skeptic
The only priced offering on these pages is free, and its limits are stated to the digit: Blindside Networks' free Moodle 4.0 hosting with "class sizes up to 25 users, viewers see only moderator's webcam, maximum of 60 minutes per session, and recordings expire after 7 days". Every paid path is "reach out to any of the companies that provide hosting" — a sales conversation — so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from public pages; we found no per-host price, no dial-in rate and no storage allowance stated anywhere. 11 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited 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 16 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 — Ownership, Legal entity, 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.
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 product fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Project homepage bigbluebutton.org Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Product page bigbluebutton.org Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy bigbluebutton.org Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 The meeting itself — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 The meeting itself — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap bigbluebutton.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →