The meeting itself
How this is scored
Whether the call works: participant capacity, video and audio quality under load, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation, and what happens on a bad connection.
0 — Small meetings only, no screen sharing worth the name, no moderation controls, and the call degrades without telling anyone.
3 — Standard meetings with screen sharing and mute-all, but low participant limits, no breakout rooms and no bandwidth adaptation stated.
5 — Meetings at the scale most teams need with screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, and documented behaviour on constrained connections.
8 — Large meetings and webinars with published capacity limits, per-participant moderation and waiting rooms, layout control, simulcast or adaptive bitrate stated, and reliable behaviour on mobile networks.
10 — Scale and control are engineering claims the vendor stands behind: capacity published per plan and per region, selective forwarding with adaptive quality documented, live streaming, hardware-room support, and diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call.
The IT Administrator
Published capacity I can actually plan against — 100/150/500/1000 participants per plan, 24-hour meetings, in-domain streaming at Enterprise, and a hardware add-on for rooms. But the evidence is silent on moderation controls, waiting rooms, breakouts, behaviour on a bad connection, and any diagnostics an admin can read after a call fails — and I judge a product by its worst meeting, not the capacity slide. 2