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 Works Council Advocate

Weighted verdict

A recorded meeting is personal data about everyone in it. Wants to know who may record, who is told, how long it is kept, and whether attention tracking or attendance analytics can be switched off outright. Reads engagement scoring as surveillance with a chart.

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

Scored by The Works Council Advocate

Panel median The Works Council 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 Works Council Advocate
The meeting itself 2 of 5 2 of 5
Encryption & meeting access 1 of 5 1 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 0.5 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 →