Video Conferencing
Digital Samba
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Digital Samba S.L. · www.digitalsamba.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.
Digital Samba at a glance
- Vendor
- Digital Samba S.L.
- 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 Digital Samba 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Digital Samba is browser-based video conferencing from Digital Samba S.L., a Spanish company. 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
Digital Samba is browser-based video conferencing from Digital Samba S.L., a Spanish company. The strongest scoring is integrations, at 5-6, for a documented REST API with webhooks, pagination, a stated 1000-requests-per-minute limit and a public npm SDK; reach and accessibility follow at a flat 4, since joining needs no account, no download and no credit card. The meeting core, encryption and access, and recording governance span 2-4: on the meeting core the split runs between judges crediting the roles, permissions and live-statistics resources and those finding capacity and degraded-connection behaviour undocumented; encryption rests on a single end-to-end option with no public information on key handling; recording has a full API lifecycle but no public information on consent or retention. Sovereignty spans 4-6, tracking how heavily judges weight a stated posture — "100% European hosted. Only European sub-processors. Zero tracking." — with no infrastructure, subprocessor or certification named and no independently sourced sovereignty attributes on record. Pricing transparency sits at 1: a free beta is the only price fact published.
Speaks for it
- Joining needs no account, no download and no credit card — a single click launches a call.
- A documented REST API covers rooms, participants, recordings, polls and webhooks, rate-limited to 1000 requests per minute.
- A public npm SDK, written in TypeScript with type definitions, embeds meetings in your own product.
- Recordings run a full API lifecycle — list, download, start, stop, archive, delete — producing an mp4.
- The vendor's own page states 100% European hosting, only European sub-processors and zero tracking.
Held against it
- We found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, host moderation or behaviour on a constrained connection.
- End-to-end encryption appears as a single line, with no public information on key handling or what the vendor can technically see.
- We found no public information on recording consent, participant notification, retention or organisation-wide recording policy.
- We found no public information on single sign-on, calendar integration, user provisioning or a self-hosted deployment option.
- We found no public information naming the infrastructure, subprocessors or certifications behind the stated European hosting.
Best for
- You are building conferencing into your own application and want a documented API plus an embeddable SDK.
- Your meetings rely on outside guests joining from a browser without accounts or downloads.
- You manage recordings programmatically and can set consent and retention rules yourself.
- A stated European-hosted, zero-tracking posture matters to you and you can corroborate it during procurement.
Avoid if
- You must control who may record, with consent and retention rules, organisation-wide from day one.
- You require single sign-on, user provisioning or deployment on your own infrastructure.
- You need published participant capacity and documented behaviour on constrained connections for large meetings.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| The meeting itself | 1 of 5 |
| Encryption & meeting access | 2 of 5 |
| Reach & accessibility | 2 of 5 |
| Recordings, retention & admin control | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & deployment | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 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 is confirmed and the API exposes roles, permissions and live statistics, so some moderation and a trace of diagnostics exist. But we found no public information on participant capacity limits, breakout rooms, behaviour on a constrained connection, or post-call diagnostics an admin can read — capacity that is not published is a promise, not a number. 1 4
The Security Officer
Screen sharing is documented in real terms and roles, permissions, polls and quizzes exist as API resources, but we found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, host moderation such as mute-all, or how the call behaves on a constrained connection. 1 4
The Works Council Advocate
Screen sharing and single-click browser joining are confirmed on the vendor page, but I found no public information on participant capacity, host moderation controls, breakout rooms, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection. For anyone chairing a works assembly, that silence about what happens when the connection degrades is decisive. 1
The Educator
The one thing I can point to in class is screen sharing, described as crisp and snappy, with polls and quizzes listed as API resources — but I found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, host moderation such as mute-all, or documented behaviour on a weak phone connection, which is exactly what a mixed-device classroom needs to know. 1 4
The Accessibility Advocate
Screen sharing is confirmed as a first-class feature and the API exposes roles, permissions and live statistics, which gives a host something to moderate with. We found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, waiting rooms, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection, so I cannot tell a deaf colleague chairing the meeting whether it will hold up under load or how it degrades. 1 4
The Skeptic
The page promises a crisp screen share and a one-click launch, and the API exposes rooms, participants and a roles-and-permissions resource — but that is where the documentation of the call itself ends. We found no public information on participant capacity, video or audio behaviour under load, breakout rooms, host moderation controls, or what happens on a constrained connection. 1 4
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
An end-to-end encryption option is named on the product page, which is more than nothing. Judged on mechanism rather than the word, we found no public information on key handling, what the vendor can technically see, waiting rooms, per-meeting passcode policies, or SSO-gated joining. 1
The Security Officer
The only encryption evidence is a single line saying users can enable end-to-end encryption, with no documentation of key handling, which features stop working, or what the vendor itself can still see. The only access posture shown is joining with no account required, and we found no public information on lobbies, waiting rooms, per-meeting passcodes, or host-controlled admission. 1
The Works Council Advocate
An end-to-end encryption toggle is named on the vendor page, which is more than a transport-only claim, but I found no public information on key handling, what features stop working when it is enabled, waiting rooms, per-meeting passcodes, or who controls admission. A roles-and-permissions surface exists in the API listing, yet nothing captured says how it governs meeting entry. 1 4
The Educator
End-to-end encryption is offered as a toggle the vendor invites you to enable, and that matters to me, but this criterion judges mechanism: I found no public information on key handling, which features stop working when it is on, or how a meeting is gated — passcodes, a lobby, host-controlled admission. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
End-to-end encryption is offered as an option, which is the right headline, but one line on a product page is not a mechanism. We found no public information on key handling, which features stop working when it is on, lobby or per-meeting access control, or what the vendor can technically see, so a capability asserted but never documented sits between the basic and the credible. 1
The Skeptic
"Enable End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)" is the entire documented mechanism: nothing says which meetings or which plans it covers, what stops working when it is on, or how keys are handled. We found no public information on waiting rooms, host-controlled admission, per-meeting passcodes, or a plain statement of what the vendor can technically see. 1
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
Joining with no account, no download and a single click from the browser is clearly stated, and the product is embeddable in a web page — the core of reach. But we found no public information on dial-in numbers (telephony appears only as an API resource), live captions, keyboard or screen-reader testing, an accessibility statement, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour. 1 3 4
The Security Officer
Joining needs no download and no account, rooms sit on the team's own subdomain with a web SDK for embedding, and telephony appears among the API resources. We found no public information on dial-in numbers, live captions, keyboard or screen-reader support, a published accessibility statement, or low-bandwidth behaviour. 1 4
The Works Council Advocate
Joining needs no download, no account and a single click, which is genuine guest reach and the strongest accessibility fact captured. I found no public information on telephone dial-in numbers, live captions, a stated accessibility posture, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour; telephony appears only as an API resource with no numbers or regions attached. 1 4
The Educator
Joining is genuinely low-friction — no account, no download, no credit card, a single click, no forced sign-up — which clears the first hurdle for guest speakers and phone-only students. Beyond that I found no public information on telephone dial-in, live captions, screen-reader or keyboard operation, mobile apps, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour; a telephony item appears in the API listing but with no numbers or details. 1 4
The Accessibility Advocate
Reach is the one thing genuinely done right: a single click in the browser, no download, no account, no credit card, no forced sign-up. Everything my test needs went unmentioned — we found no public information on live captions, keyboard or screen-reader operation, a published accessibility conformance report, or dial-in numbers, with Telephony appearing only as a name in the API resource list. A posture that exists nowhere in public is marketing silence, not an accessibility posture. 1 4
The Skeptic
Joining needs no account, no download and no credit card, which is the guest-reach story a buyer wants, and a telephony resource appears in the API — though with no numbers listed. We found no public information on mobile apps, dial-in numbers by region, captions, keyboard or screen-reader support, or a stated accessibility posture. 1 4
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
The recording lifecycle is genuinely engineered — list, download, start, stop, archive and delete through the API with deletion confirmed, and hosting stated as European. But we found no public information on organisation-wide policy over who may record, participant notification or consent, retention automation, or access logging on recordings. 2 4 1
The Security Officer
Recording is a toolbar button or an SDK call producing an mp4 retrievable from the dashboard or a download endpoint, and deletion is documented with a clean no-content response. We found no public information on who may record, participant notification or consent, the storage region for recordings, retention rules, or organisation-wide admin policy. 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
Any conference can be recorded by simply clicking the record button or calling an SDK method, and a documented deletion endpoint returns a clean no-content response — that deletion is real and testable. But I found no public information on participant notification or consent, retention rules, organisation-wide policy over who may record, or whether the statistics and live-participant usage monitoring can be switched off, and those are exactly the points a works agreement turns on. 4 2
The Educator
Recording works — a toolbar button or an SDK call, an mp4 in the dashboard, plus archive and a documented delete endpoint returning a clean no-content status — but I found no public information on who is allowed to record, whether participants are notified or asked for consent, where recordings are stored, or any retention rule beyond deleting by hand. 2 4
The Accessibility Advocate
Recordings are manageable by API — start, stop, list, download, archive, and a delete endpoint that answers with success — so manual deletion works. We found no public information on who may record, whether participants are notified, where recordings are stored, retention rules, access logging, or any organisation-wide switch, and "any video conference can be recorded" is a feature sentence, not a policy. 2 4
The Skeptic
Recording is real and manageable — a toolbar record button or an SDK call producing an mp4, with list, download, start, stop, delete and archive endpoints behind it. But we found no public information on who may record, whether participants are notified or asked for consent, where recordings are stored, how long they live, or any organisation-wide policy control; the only deletion evidenced is a manual API call. 2 4
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
The strong suit: a documented REST API covering rooms, participants, tokens, recordings and telephony with rate limits and pagination, webhooks for room events, and a public TypeScript SDK on npm for embedding. But we found no public information on SSO, calendar integration with the major suites, SCIM provisioning, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option — the identity and deployment side matters most to me. 4 3 1
The Security Officer
A documented REST API covers rooms, sessions, participants, roles, recordings, polls and webhooks with stated authentication, pagination and rate limits, and a public npm SDK with TypeScript types supports embedding, which is genuinely buildable. We found no public information on single sign-on, calendar suite integration, SCIM provisioning, room systems, or any self-hosted or private-cloud deployment. 1 2 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The documented REST API with webhooks, pagination and rate limits, plus a publicly distributed embeddable SDK, is a genuinely solid stack to build on. I found no public information on calendar integration, single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option — as captured, the product runs on the vendor's European cloud only. 4 3 1
The Educator
For a teacher building a custom classroom this is the strongest surface here: a documented REST API covering rooms, sessions, participants, roles, recordings, polls and webhooks with a stated rate limit, plus a public npm SDK for embedding a room in your own page. What I found no public information on is the everyday plumbing — calendar integration, single sign-on, user provisioning, room-system support — and no self-hosted or private-cloud deployment is evidenced, so running it on our own infrastructure is not an option the captured pages show. 1 2 3 4
The Accessibility Advocate
The developer surface is real and documented: a REST API with pagination and rate limits, webhooks for join and leave events, a TypeScript SDK distributed on npm, and an embeddable control for building the meeting into your own app. We found no public information on calendar integration, SAML or OIDC single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, or room-system support, and no sign the product can run on the customer's own infrastructure. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The developer surface is genuinely documented: a REST API with bearer authentication, pagination and a stated 1000-requests-per-minute rate limit, webhooks for join and leave events, an embedded SDK product on npm with TypeScript types, and recordings management endpoints. But we found no public information on calendar integrations, single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud deployment option — it is a strong API on a cloud-only footing. 1 3 4
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 vendor's own page states one hundred percent European hosting, only European subprocessors and zero tracking — the right vocabulary, and I weigh this category heavily. But the claim rests on the vendor's word alone: we found no published subprocessor list with names, no named infrastructure or certification, no on-premises option, and no independently sourced sovereignty attributes on record. 1
The Security Officer
The vendor's own page asserts full European hosting, only European subprocessors and zero tracking, which points the right way. But we found no published subprocessor list, no named infrastructure, no certification, and no independently sourced sovereignty attributes on record — for a buyer who weighs this heavily, an uncorroborated marketing sentence is a claim, not evidence. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor page asserts one hundred percent European hosting, only European subprocessors and zero tracking, and the contracting entity carries a Spanish corporate form — claims this buyer wants to believe. But they sit on the Free product description, and I found no named infrastructure, no published subprocessor list, no certification, and nothing independent corroborating any of it. 1
The Educator
The vendor's own page claims one hundred percent European hosting, only European sub-processors and zero tracking, and the contracting entity is a Spanish company — words I want to believe for a European school. But nothing is named — no infrastructure, no individual subprocessor, no certification — and no independently sourced sovereignty attributes are on record, so for a buyer who weighs this heavily the claims stand alone. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
The vendor states it plainly: "100% European hosted. Only European sub-processors. True data sovereignty. Zero tracking." I weigh this category heavily, so I want the names, and we found no public information on which infrastructure carries the media, who the subprocessors are, or any certification standing behind the claim — assurance without published detail. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor page asserts "100% European hosted. Only European sub-processors. True data sovereignty" and the contracting entity is a Spanish company — a claim at the level of EU hosting with an EU entity — but nothing corroborates it. No subprocessor is named, no infrastructure is identified, no certification is published, and no independently sourced sovereignty attributes are on record; a buyer who weighs this heavily is being asked to take the sentence on faith. 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
A free tier in beta is the only pricing-adjacent fact on the captured pages. We found no public information on per-host prices, billing periods, participant capacity by plan, dial-in rates or recording storage — a buyer cannot compute any invoice from what is published. 1
The Security Officer
A free tier in beta with no credit card required is the only pricing information found. We found no public prices, billing periods, capacity limits, dial-in rates or storage allowances for paid tiers, so no annual invoice can be computed from public pages. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only pricing signal in the captured pages is a free beta for scheduling features; I found no public prices for paid tiers, no capacity limits, no recording-storage allowances and no dial-in rates. A buyer cannot even begin to compute an annual invoice from what is published. 1
The Educator
A free tier is named, live in beta with no credit card required, and that is everything public I could find on price. I found no public information on per-host prices for paid plans, capacity limits, dial-in rates, recording storage, billing period or VAT treatment, so no buyer can compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
We found no public information on pricing: no per-host rate, no tiers beyond a free beta with registration, no capacity limits, no dial-in or recording-storage figures, no minimum term or VAT treatment. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from the public pages alone. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing fact anywhere in the captured pages is a free beta with no credit card required. We found no public information on per-host prices, billing periods, participant caps, dial-in rates or recording storage allowances, so an annual invoice for any host count cannot be computed from what is published. 1
Questions about Digital Samba
Is Digital Samba European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Digital Samba is based.
Where does Digital Samba store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Digital Samba have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Digital Samba?
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: Digital Samba 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (digitalsamba.com, docs.digitalsamba.com/reference/rest-api/recordings/delete, docs.digitalsamba.com/reference/sdk, docs.digitalsamba.com/reference/rest-api). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (digitalsamba.com, docs.digitalsamba.com/reference/rest-api/recordings/delete, docs.digitalsamba.com/reference/sdk, docs.digitalsamba.com/reference/rest-api). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 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
- 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.digitalsamba.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap docs.digitalsamba.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap docs.digitalsamba.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap docs.digitalsamba.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →