Video Conferencing
ClickMeeting
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ClickMeeting · www.clickmeeting.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
ClickMeeting at a glance
- Vendor
- ClickMeeting
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates ClickMeeting 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. ClickMeeting is a browser-based webinar and meeting platform whose strength is entry: joining needs no install from a desktop browser, mobile app or mobile browser, with real-time live transcription, screen-reader support on web and mobile, and adjustable chat font sizes; reach and accessibility scores run 5 to 6, the highest here. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
ClickMeeting is a browser-based webinar and meeting platform whose strength is entry: joining needs no install from a desktop browser, mobile app or mobile browser, with real-time live transcription, screen-reader support on web and mobile, and adjustable chat font sizes; reach and accessibility scores run 5 to 6, the highest here. The meeting core scores 4 to 5 — up to 40 people per meeting, host mic control, breakout rooms for up to 800 attendees across 20 rooms — while the large-events claim of thousands carries no published figure. The weak flank is governance: encryption and access scores sit at 2 to 3, with admission control real but no public information on what is encrypted, and sovereignty scores run 1 to 2: beyond a statement of European servers and transcription kept on the vendor's infrastructure, we found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership or subprocessors. Recording governance scores 3 to 4, with viewer tracking documented and no public information on consent or retention. Criterion scores span at most one point; no public prices appear.
Speaks for it
- Attendees join from a desktop browser, mobile app or mobile browser with nothing to install
- Live audio transcription renders participants' speech as real-time text, alongside screen-reader support and adjustable chat font sizes
- Meetings hold up to 40 people with host mic control, and breakout rooms distribute up to 800 attendees across 20 rooms
- Integrations scores sit at a flat 4, covering Zapier to 1,500 applications, Google Calendar, iCal, Slack, a Moodle plugin, Stripe and PayPal
- Recording space is published — 30 minutes on the free trial, 6 hours on Live plans, 10 hours on Automated plans — with mp4 download, trimming and manual deletion
Held against it
- We found no public information on what is encrypted in transit or at rest, on key handling, or on any end-to-end option
- The European evidence is a statement of data on European servers, with no public information on contracting entity, ownership or subprocessors
- We found no public information on participant notification, consent or retention for recordings, while viewer tracking behind an email gate is documented
- We found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, room-system support or any self-hosted option
- We found no public information on telephone dial-in, keyboard operation, or behaviour on constrained connections
Best for
- You run webinars or online classes where attendees must join from any browser or phone without installing software and follow along with real-time transcription
- You teach or train and want an Edu mode, a Moodle plugin, breakout rooms for up to 800 attendees across 20 rooms, and a waiting room enabled by default
- You monetize events or run marketing-led webinars — Stripe ticketing in over 135 currencies, PayPal, and exports to HubSpot, GetResponse, MailerLite, Keap and Pipedrive are documented
Avoid if
- Your security sign-off requires documented encryption, key handling or an end-to-end option — the public pages describe admission control (password, one-time token, waiting room enabled by default), and we found no public information on the cryptography
- You must evidence a European setup for a works council or public procurement — beyond a statement of data on European servers, we found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership or subprocessors
- Your recordings hold employee personal data and need consent prompts, retention rules or organisation-wide admin policy — we found no public information on these, while viewer tracking of shared recordings behind an email gate is documented
- You must keep attendee data away from advertising platforms — Google Analytics 4 and Meta Pixel tracking are documented on ClickMeeting pages and available for all pricing plans, with TikTok Pixel and LinkedIn Insight also offered
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| The meeting itself | 2 of 5 |
| Encryption & meeting access | 1 of 5 |
| Reach & accessibility | 3 of 5 |
| Recordings, retention & admin control | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & deployment | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
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
Screen sharing, host mic control, breakout rooms with published limits of 20 rooms and 800 attendees, and an HD option are documented, and the 40-person meeting cap is a number I can plan against; the large-events claim carries no published limit. I found no public information on behaviour on a constrained connection, adaptive quality, or diagnostics an admin could read after a bad call, which is how I judge a product. 1 2 3 5 8
The Security Officer
Meetings run to forty people with screen sharing, host control over attendee microphones, and breakout rooms carrying 800 attendees across twenty rooms, with a waiting room on by default. For the large events for thousands that the pages advertise, I found no published capacity limits per plan, no statement on adaptive quality or behaviour on constrained connections, and no admin diagnostics after a bad call. Solid for a normal team; the scale claim is unevidenced. 1 2 3 5 8
The Works Council Advocate
Screen sharing, host control over attendee microphones, a waiting room and breakout rooms for up to 800 attendees across 20 rooms are documented, with meetings capped at 40 participants and large events for thousands. We found no public information on behaviour on constrained connections, capacity published per plan, or any adaptive quality mechanism, which keeps this below the level most teams would want proven. 1 2 3
The Educator
Breakout rooms for up to 800 attendees across 20 rooms with manual or random assignment, screen sharing, host mic control and a waiting room on by default cover a real classroom, and meetings take 40 with larger events claimed for thousands. But I found no public information on how the call behaves on a weak mobile connection — no adaptive quality and no degradation notice — and half my students would be exactly there. 1 2 3 8
The Accessibility Advocate
The documented meeting capacity is 40, with screen sharing, host mic control, breakout rooms for up to 800 attendees, and a waiting room enabled by default — the everyday core is real. But the only scaling claim beyond that is an unspecific "thousands" for large events, and we found no public information on how a call degrades or adapts on a weak connection, which is exactly what I need to know before sending anyone onto mobile data. 1 2 3 5
The Skeptic
Meetings carry a published cap of forty people, with screen sharing, host control of attendee microphones, and breakout rooms that distribute up to 800 attendees across 20 rooms — numbers I can actually check. Beyond the breakout figure, scale is marketing ("large events for thousands of people" with no figure per plan), and I found no public information on how calls behave on constrained connections or any adaptive-quality statement. A credible mid-scale meeting room; performance under load is asserted only in adjectives. 1 2 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
Access control is real — a waiting room enabled by default plus password or one-time token protection. I found no public information on the encryption mechanism, key handling, or whether the vendor can technically access media, so the access controls cannot carry the criterion alone. 2 5
The Security Officer
Access control exists: a password or one-time token on the room, a waiting room enabled by default, and breakout rooms without public URLs. I found no public information on what is actually encrypted in transit or at rest, who holds the keys, or whether the vendor can technically access media — the captured security-policy page yielded no mechanism I can judge. A working door with silent cryptography is worth little on this criterion. 2 3 5
The Works Council Advocate
Access control is real: rooms are protected by a password or one-time token and a waiting room enabled by default where attendees wait for the event to start. We found no public information on what is actually encrypted, how keys are handled, or whether the vendor can technically access media, so this criterion rests on admission control alone with no documented encryption mechanism behind it. 2 5
The Educator
The room can be secured with a password or one-time token and the waiting room is enabled by default, which keeps strangers out of my class. But I found no public information on what is actually encrypted, how keys are handled, or whether the vendor can technically access media, so the mechanism cannot be judged beyond the door. 2 5
The Accessibility Advocate
Door-keeping is respectable: password or one-time token protection, breakout rooms with no public URLs, and a waiting room on by default. But judged on mechanism rather than the word "secure", we found no public information on what is encrypted in transit or at rest, on key handling, or on whether the vendor can technically access meeting media, and that silence caps this score hard. 2 3 5
The Skeptic
Admission control is real: the waiting room is enabled by default, rooms take a password or one-time token, and breakout rooms carry no public URLs. But we found no public information on what is actually encrypted, in transit or at rest, on key handling, or on any end-to-end option — not even from the security-policy page itself. Judged on documented mechanism rather than the word "encrypted", there is nothing here to judge; only the door-keeping is. 2 3 4 5
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
Browser joining without an install, mobile apps and mobile browsers, a stated accessibility posture with screen-reader support on web and mobile, adjustable chat font sizes across surfaces, and live audio transcription rendered as text are all documented. I found no public information on telephone dial-in or documented low-bandwidth behaviour, which is what loses people on a poor connection. 2 3 6 7
The Security Officer
Joining is browser-based with no install, attendees arrive from desktop or mobile, and the accessibility posture is more than boilerplate: a screen-reader-readable website, a voice-over-friendly mobile app, adjustable chat fonts, and real-time live audio transcription. I found no public information on telephone dial-in, a published conformance report, keyboard-only operation, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour. Good reach; the phone number is missing from the story. 2 3 6 7
The Works Council Advocate
Everything works in the browser without installation, attendees join via mobile app or mobile browser, free accounts exist, and there is a stated accessibility posture with screen-reader compatibility, adjustable chat font size and a live audio transcription shown in real time. We found no public information on telephone dial-in, keyboard navigation of the interface, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour, so shift workers and anyone on a poor connection are left to find out for themselves. 2 3 6 7
The Educator
Browser joining without an install, a mobile app and mobile browser, live audio transcription shown as text in real time, screen-reader compatibility on the mobile app and website, and adjustable chat font sizes mean most of my thirty can get in and follow along. I found no public information on telephone dial-in, keyboard operation, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour, which is what the dead-spot students would need. 2 3 6 7
The Accessibility Advocate
This is my home ground and there is genuine effort here: live audio transcription renders participants' speech as text in real time, the website is screen-reader readable with font and contrast controls, chat font size is adjustable on desktop, browser and mobile, and the mobile app is built to work with voice-over plug-ins. The gaps are the verifiable and universal parts — we found no public information on telephone dial-in, on a published conformance report, on keyboard operation of the meeting room, or on behaviour on a poor connection. Browser joining without an install, mobile apps and an accessibility page in two languages earn a middle mark, but a page without a conformance report is a marketing page. 2 3 6 7
The Skeptic
Joining needs no install — desktop browser, mobile app or mobile browser — and the accessibility pages state screen-reader compatibility on the mobile app and website, adjustable chat font sizes, and live transcription of speech into text in real time. We found no public information on telephone dial-in, keyboard navigation, low-bandwidth behaviour, or a published conformance report. Strong on captions and screen readers; reach stops where the browser stops. 2 3 6 7
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 host-initiated from the room, downloadable as MP4, deletable, with archive storage and per-plan recording hours published — usable but thin. I found no public information on participant notification or consent prompts, organisation-wide policy over who may record, retention rules, or access logging; recording-viewer tracking is documented and I found no public information on switching it off. 2 8
The Security Officer
The recording feature set is broad — plan-based quotas, archive storage, MP4 download and delete, trimming, email-gated sharing, viewer tracking by name — but the governance around it is unevidenced: I found no public information on participant notification or consent when recording starts, admin policy over who may record, automatic retention, or access logging. Named viewer tracking with no switch I could find is exactly what a works council will ask about. Manual deletion works and transcription reportedly stays on the vendor's infrastructure, which keeps this off the floor. 6 8
The Works Council Advocate
Recording is started from the event room top bar against quotas of six hours on live plans and ten on automated plans, with mp4 download, manual deletion, archive storage, a claim that data sits on European servers, and a statement that transcription stays on the vendor's own infrastructure. We found no public information on participant notification or a consent prompt when recording starts, on retention rules or organisation-wide admin policy, on access logging, or on any way to switch off the built-in tracking of who watched each recording — and with AI summaries, transcripts and viewer tracking all operating on that personal data, this is exactly the ground a works agreement has to cover. 2 6 8
The Educator
Recordings can be trimmed, archived, downloaded as mp4 and manually deleted, viewer tracking and an email gate on shared recordings exist, and the vendor states data sits on European servers. But I found no public information on participant notification or consent when recording starts, organisation-wide policy over who may record, automatic retention, or access logging. 2 8
The Accessibility Advocate
The mechanics are ordinary SaaS: recording starts from the room's top bar, quotas and archive storage are per plan, recordings export to mp4, can be trimmed and deleted, and transcription stays inside the vendor's own infrastructure — a welcome detail. But we found no public information on participant notification or consent when recording starts, on retention rules or automatic deletion, on organisation-wide admin policy, or on access logging, while viewer tracking of who watched which recording is documented and we found no public information on a switch to disable it. A works council has nothing concrete to sign here. 2 8
The Skeptic
Recording quotas are unusually specific — 30 trial minutes, 6 hours on live plans, 10 on automated, with recording allowed to overrun until the event ends — plus archive storage, trimming, mp4 download and manual deletion. The governance around those recordings is the hole: we found no public information on participant notification or consent when recording starts, retention rules beyond manual deletion, organisation-wide admin policy, or access logging. And the product tracks who watched a shared recording behind an email gate, with no stated way to switch that off for a works agreement. 8
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
Google Calendar, iCal, Slack, Zapier into 1,500 apps, a Moodle plugin, and payment and marketing exports give a workable stack, with a developer zone linked. I found no public information on single sign-on — SAML, OIDC, anything — nor on provisioning, webhooks or an embeddable SDK, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option; for a board deployment that gap decides it. 1 9 10
The Security Officer
Calendar (Google, iCal), Slack, Zapier to 1,500 applications, a developer zone with an API, Moodle, Stripe and PayPal make the commercial stack genuinely connected. I found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, an embedding SDK, room-system support, or any self-hosted deployment, so identity integration and deployment choice rest on nothing I can verify. A conferencing product I cannot gate behind my own directory is a security gap no matter how many marketing tools it plugs into. 1 9 10
The Works Council Advocate
A developer zone and Zapier access to 1,500 applications are offered, alongside Google Calendar and iCal, Slack scheduling, PayPal and Stripe payments, and a Moodle plugin. We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, embedding, or any self-hosted or private-cloud deployment; the extensive attendee-data exports to marketing and tracking platforms are commercial plumbing, not identity integration, and they move employee data outward rather than keeping it in the customer's stack. 1 9 10
The Educator
Google Calendar and iCal for attendees, Slack scheduling, a Moodle plugin, payments, and a wide marketing stack through Zapier are real plumbing, with a developer zone listed in the footer. I found no public information on single sign-on, provisioning, webhooks, an embeddable SDK, room-system support, or any self-hosted or on-premises option. 1 9 10
The Accessibility Advocate
The perimeter is wide on marketing and payments — Zapier to 1,500 apps, Slack, Google Calendar and iCal, a Moodle plugin, Dropbox and YouTube export, plus a developer zone and public status page implying a real API. We found no public information on single sign-on via SAML or OIDC, on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, embedding SDKs, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option, so identity and deployment remain vendor-cloud matters. 1 9 10
The Skeptic
Google Calendar, iCal and Slack, a Zapier bridge to 1,500 applications, a Moodle plugin, Stripe and PayPal for paid events, marketing exports to HubSpot, GetResponse, MailerLite, Keap and Pipedrive — the commercial stack is well served, and a developers' zone and status page point to an API. We found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option. Identity and deployment both remain on the vendor's side. 1 9 10
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 pages claim data on European servers and state that transcription stays inside the vendor's own infrastructure. But I found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, where media is relayed in real time, or a single named subprocessor — in a category I weight heavily, an unnamed chain is not something I can sign. 2 8
The Security Officer
The entire European story is one marketing sentence about data on European servers, plus a claim that transcription stays on the vendor's own infrastructure. The contracting entity, its jurisdiction, ownership, every subprocessor and any certification are unknown to me, and the product is built to push recordings and attendee lists to Dropbox, YouTube, HubSpot and similar services once configured. I weigh this category heavily, and one sentence does not carry it. 2 8 10
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor claims data on European servers and states that transcription does not leave its own infrastructure, which is welcome as far as it goes. We found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, where media and metadata are actually processed, or any subprocessor list, and the independently sourced sovereignty assessment returns nothing on every attribute — a single marketing claim about EU data centers cannot carry this category for a buyer who weighs it heavily. 2 8
The Educator
The vendor's page says data is on European servers and that transcription stays on their own infrastructure, but I found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, or the subprocessors carrying media and metadata. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, one line about servers is not evidence of a European chain. 2 8
The Accessibility Advocate
One marketing line states that data sits on European servers, and the transcription path staying inside the vendor's own infrastructure is concrete and welcome, but that is where the evidence stops. We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, on ownership, on where media relays and metadata are processed, or on any named subprocessor; weighed as heavily as this buyer weighs it, a bare hosting claim is a claim, not evidence. 2 8
The Skeptic
One sentence asserts data on European servers, and transcription is said never to leave the vendor's own infrastructure — but the servers are not named, and we found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, or any subprocessor list. Meanwhile the integrations pages market attendee tracking to Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, TikTok Pixel and LinkedIn Insight on every plan. An assertion of European hosting without a single named link in the chain is not something I can hand a works council. 2 8 10
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
Recording hours per plan, the free account, and credit-based add-on purchasing are public, but I found no public price figures at all — no per-host price, no billing period, no dial-in or storage rates — with a demo-booking funnel in their place. I cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1 8 9
The Security Officer
I found no public price information at all — no per-host figure, no plan prices, no billing terms; the pages show a free account, recording-hour allowances that differ between Live and Automated plans, and a credit-based paid add-on for AI clips. Capacity is named while money is not, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. What is visible instead is demo booking, which suggests a sales conversation per tier. 1 8 9
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on prices: no per-host or per-plan price, billing period, minimum term, dial-in rates or storage pricing appears on the captured pages — only that a free account exists, a trial allows 30 minutes of recording, and live plans carry six hours of recording space against ten on automated plans. A buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from what is published, and the AI clip feature is sold as a credit-based add-on with no public price for those credits. 8 9
The Educator
Plan names and recording allowances are published and a free account exists, but I found no public information on what any paid tier costs, the billing period, or add-on rates such as the credit-based AI clips. A school cannot compute a budget from what is shown. 8 9
The Accessibility Advocate
We found no public price figures at all — only a free account, a 30-minute trial, recording-hour quotas per plan, and a credit-based AI add-on, with demo booking as the visible route in. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice for a given host count from public pages, and we found no public information on dial-in rates, storage overage, minimum term or VAT treatment. 1 8 9
The Skeptic
The only pricing-related facts on any captured page are a free account, an unpriced credit-based AI add-on, and recording hours per package. No per-host price, billing period, VAT treatment, dial-in rate or storage overage appears anywhere I can cite, and the homepage's call to action is to book a demo. A buyer cannot compute even one month's invoice from what is public here. 1 8 9
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about ClickMeeting
Is ClickMeeting European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where ClickMeeting is based.
Where does ClickMeeting store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does ClickMeeting have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to ClickMeeting?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates alfaview (3/5), Tixeo (3/5) and Nextcloud Talk (3/5) highest among the other 27 Video Conferencing products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is alfaview (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: ClickMeeting alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 10 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
- 10 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
- 9 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
- 3 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
- 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
- 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 (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 The meeting itself — found from sitemap clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 The meeting itself — found from sitemap clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →