whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Video Conferencing

ClickMeeting

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

ClickMeeting: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai ClickMeeting: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

ClickMeeting alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Accessibility Advocate

Weighted verdict

Judges the product by whether a deaf colleague and a screen-reader user can run the meeting, not merely attend it. Wants live captions, keyboard operation, a published conformance report, and dial-in for people with no usable connection. Treats an accessibility page with no report as a marketing page.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Accessibility Advocate

Panel median The Accessibility Advocate This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Accessibility Advocate
The meeting itself 2 of 5 2 of 5
Encryption & meeting access 1 of 5 1.5 of 5
Reach & accessibility 3 of 5 3 of 5
Recordings, retention & admin control 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Integrations & deployment 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1 of 5 1 of 5

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Encryption & meeting access

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Reach & accessibility

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Recordings, retention & admin control

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations & deployment

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about ClickMeeting? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (10)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 The meeting itself — found from sitemap clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 The meeting itself — found from sitemap clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap knowledge.clickmeeting.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →