The meeting itself
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 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