whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Video Conferencing

Jitsi Meet

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by 8x8, Inc. · jitsi.org

Compare with Nextcloud Talk → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

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

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 selective-forwarding bridge comes with published load tests — 1056 streams at over 550 Mbps for about 20% CPU on a rentable server — plus a Last-N mode that documents behaviour under load, and screen sharing and integrated chat are on the product page. But the pages say every participant is a moderator on meet.jit.si and the controls are "soft, and for everyone", so host control is shared rather than reserved. We found no public information on breakout rooms, waiting rooms, layout control, or behaviour on mobile networks. 2 3 6 7

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

End-to-end encryption is a real, documented option — a shared passphrase, Chromium 83 or the Electron client, and a layer the page says is never removed at the bridge — with the trade-offs named plainly: chat and polls sit outside it. The cryptography is open source under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and the vendor states what it tracks. We found no public information on identity verification for participants, SSO-gated joining, or a lobby on the public service; a password per meeting is the access control shown. 3 5 8

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

Anyone joins from a browser with no account and no install, and apps ship on App Store, Google Play and F-Droid — guest reach is excellent. Transcription is evidenced and a per-room dial-in information page is documented, but we found no public information on listed dial-in numbers or regions. Crucially, we found no public information on keyboard operation, screen-reader testing, an accessibility statement, or a conformance report — and without a report I cannot hand this to a deaf colleague or a screen-reader user to run. 2 3 9 10

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 ephemeral defaults are strong: rooms die when the last participant leaves, chat and speaker stats are destroyed with them, and cloud recordings are deleted after at most 24 hours once uploaded to the destination you indicated — currently Dropbox. But that third-party destination raises the storage question rather than answering it. We found no public information on participant notification or consent when recording, storage region, or organisation-wide admin policy over who may record. 3 5 6

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

Deployment really is the customer's choice: the same open-source product self-hosts via Docker or a quick-install in as little as 15 minutes, with an embeddable external API, full API documentation, and XMPP or REST control interfaces. But the calendar-and-identity half of this criterion goes unaddressed — we found no public information on calendar integration, SAML or OIDC single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or room-system support. 2 3 6 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

The contracting entity is 8x8, Inc. of Campbell, California, disputes are litigated exclusively in New York City, and total liability for any claim is capped at TEN DOLLARS (USD$10); the demo service runs analytics through Amplitude, Datadog and Crashlytics, and data residency for what 8x8 hosts is unknown on the captured pages. Self-hosting lets an organisation take the question entirely in-house, but we found no public EU residency, certification, or safeguard commitments for the vendor's own hosted services. 3 5

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

The software's price is public and simple — "completely free", usable "all day, every day, for free — with no account needed" — and the performance page speaks of a server "rentable for about a hundred dollars" for the self-hosted path. But the hosted production service has no prices on the captured pages; the terms only warn that 8x8 may "require You to transition to a paid service". We found no public information on dial-in rates or recording storage allowances. 1 2 5 7

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 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 Foreign-controlled ⚠ unverified 0/2 pts 3 Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

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 Jitsi Meet? 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 Project homepage jitsi.org Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Product page jitsi.org Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security page jitsi.org Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Source named in a correction jitsi.org Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Terms of service jitsi.org Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 The meeting itself — found from sitemap jitsi.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 The meeting itself — found from sitemap jitsi.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap jitsi.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap jitsi.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap jitsi.org Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →