Video Conferencing
Lifesize
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lifesize, Inc. · www.lifesize.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.
Lifesize at a glance
- Vendor
- Lifesize, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Lifesize 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lifesize's published pages score strongest as an organisation-wide conferencing service tied to its own room hardware: recording governance sits at a flat 4 — Record and Share enabled at account level, admins managing the recordings library, sharing restricted to specific users — and integrations score 4-5, with Icon systems prompting to join from the calendar named the bright spot. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Lifesize's published pages score strongest as an organisation-wide conferencing service tied to its own room hardware: recording governance sits at a flat 4 — Record and Share enabled at account level, admins managing the recordings library, sharing restricted to specific users — and integrations score 4-5, with Icon systems prompting to join from the calendar named the bright spot. Reach and accessibility spread 4 to 6: the high end credits browser joining across Chrome, Edge, Internet Explorer 11, Safari and Firefox, guest email links and dial-in, while lower marks rest on captions documented only for live-stream events and no published accessibility statement. Sovereignty is weakest at 0-1; the captured pages give no jurisdiction, ownership, residency or subprocessor information, and the only regional signals are a US-default main number and a US support line. Meeting core splits 2 to 4, the low mark resting on presentations appearing only as recordable streams on room systems. Pricing transparency sits at 0 — plan names Enterprise and Premium, no figures — noted in passing.
Speaks for it
- Recording governance sits at a flat 4 on account-level Record and Share control, admin management of the entire recordings library, and sharing restricted to specific users
- Calendar integration is documented for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace and Exchange Server 2013 and 2016, with room mailboxes feeding Icon systems that prompt to join
- Meeting access controls are documented as account toggles: a waiting room, a required meeting passcode, and hiding meetings from the directory
- Browser joining is documented across Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer 11, Safari and Firefox, with guests invited by email link
- Dial-in is documented with a main number plus up to three additional numbers in email and calendar invitations
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 0-1, with legal-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors all unknown on the captured pages
- We found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, mute-all moderation or behaviour on a constrained connection
- Encryption is documented only as SIP media encryption on room devices, with no public information found on cloud-meeting encryption, key handling or what the vendor can technically see
- Automatic recording starts when two participants join and stops only by ending the meeting, and we found no public information on participant notification or consent
- Live captions are documented only for live-stream events, and we found no public information on an accessibility statement or keyboard and screen-reader support
Best for
- You run meeting rooms on Icon hardware and want the calendar to drive the join experience
- You need organisation-wide recording control, with admins managing the library and sharing restricted to specific users
- Your external guests join by browser link or phone, where five browsers and configurable dial-in numbers are documented
Avoid if
- Your participants depend on live captions — the only documented captions are for live-stream events and require Live Streaming to be enabled
- You require encrypted media in every mode — the documented SIP setting Auto supports both encrypted and unencrypted media
- Your procurement must name the contracting entity, data residency and subprocessors — the captured pages' only regional signals are a US-default main number and a US support line, and sovereignty scores sit at 0-1
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| The meeting itself | 2 of 5 |
| Encryption & meeting access | 2 of 5 |
| Reach & accessibility | 2.5 of 5 |
| Recordings, retention & admin control | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & deployment | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 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
The hardware-room story is the bright spot — Icon systems prompt you to join from the calendar as you walk in — and layouts, waiting rooms and required passcodes are all documented. But I found no public information on published participant capacity, breakout rooms, in-call moderation such as mute-all, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection. I staff for the worst meeting, and capacity I cannot read is capacity I cannot plan for. 2 3 7 9 10
The Security Officer
Documented meeting machinery is thin but real: four default layouts, permanent and one-time meetings, in-call participant adds, and invite options covering conference rooms. I found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, mute-all or other moderation, or behaviour on a bad connection, and presentations appear only as a recordable stream on room systems rather than as a documented sharing capability for desktop or web users. 2 3 9
The Works Council Advocate
Waiting rooms, required passcodes, four meeting layouts and in-call participant adding are documented, and presentations are visible in the recording options, so the basics exist. But we found no public information on participant capacity, breakout rooms, mute-all moderation, or how the call behaves on a constrained connection — nothing the vendor stands behind on scale or degradation. 2 3 9
The Educator
Layout options, a waiting room, required passcodes and in-call participant adding are documented, and recording of both presentation and camera streams implies content sharing exists. But for a classroom of thirty I need more than this: we found no public information on breakout rooms, participant capacity, moderation controls such as mute-all, or what happens to the call on a weak connection. 2 3 9
The Accessibility Advocate
Default layouts, a waiting room, a required per-meeting passcode and adding participants mid-call are all documented, which gives a host real controls. But we found no public information on participant capacity limits, breakout rooms, mute-all moderation or documented behaviour on a constrained connection, so a team cannot plan a large or flaky-network meeting from these pages. 2 3
The Skeptic
Layouts, a waiting room, a required passcode and adding participants are documented, and presentation streams show up in the room-system recording pages — but I could find no published participant capacity, no breakout rooms, no mute-all, and no statement of what happens to the call on a constrained connection. Everything that would tell me the meeting holds up under load is simply not on the pages. 2 3 9
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
Access control is real at the account level — waiting rooms, required passcodes and hiding meetings from the directory are admin toggles — and SIP media encryption is documented with off, auto and strict modes, though that covers device-to-SIP calls rather than the cloud meeting itself. I found no public information on end-to-end encryption for meetings, key handling, or a plain statement of what Lifesize can technically see. SSO configuration exists as an admin-console section, but the protocol and whether it gates joining are not stated. 2 5
The Security Officer
The door controls are real — a required meeting passcode and a waiting room are both account-level toggles — and room devices offer SIP media encryption with TLS signalling, in modes where 'Auto' still permits unencrypted media. For the cloud meetings themselves the captured security overview yielded no confirmed statement on what is encrypted, who holds the keys, or what the vendor can technically see, so the word 'encrypted' here answers nothing. 2 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
The only encryption mechanism in evidence is SIP media encryption on room devices with its Off, Auto and Strict modes and the TLS signaling requirement, while meeting access is gated by passcode and waiting room. We found no public information on encryption for the web and desktop apps, key handling, end-to-end encryption, or any plain statement of what the vendor itself can see — so who sits inside the trust boundary is undocumented. 2 5
The Educator
Waiting-room admission and required meeting passcodes are documented, and media encryption modes for SIP calls are published together with the TLS signalling requirement for encrypted media. For the cloud meeting service itself, however, we found no public information on what is encrypted, how keys are handled, end-to-end encryption, or what the vendor can technically see. 2 5
The Accessibility Advocate
Access control is real — a waiting room toggle, a per-meeting passcode requirement and host admission sit in the admin console — and media encryption for SIP calls is documented with Off, Auto and Strict modes that require TLS signalling. That encryption detail covers the room system's SIP path only; we found no public information on encryption for ordinary cloud meetings, key handling, or a plain statement of what the vendor can technically see. 2 5
The Skeptic
The only documented mechanism I can find is SIP media encryption with Off, Auto and Strict modes on room systems, which requires TLS signalling; meeting access is a waiting room plus an account-wide passcode toggle. We found no public information on end-to-end encryption, key custody, or a plain statement of what the vendor can technically see. 2 5
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
Browser joining is documented across Chrome, Edge, Internet Explorer 11, Safari and Firefox with the web app as the fallback when no desktop client is installed, guests join by link, and dial-in exists through a configurable main number plus up to three more, with the US number as default. Live captions with a language picker are documented, but only for live stream events. I found no public information on an accessibility statement, screen-reader or keyboard testing, low-bandwidth behaviour, or mobile apps. 2 3 6 7
The Security Officer
Browser joining is documented for five browsers through a join URL, guests come in by email link, and dial-in exists with a main number plus up to three additional ones — defaulted to the US. Captions are documented only for live-stream events and depend on Live Streaming being enabled first, and I found no public information on mobile apps, an accessibility statement, keyboard or screen-reader support, or low-bandwidth behaviour. 2 3 6 7
The Works Council Advocate
Browser joining is documented across Chrome, Edge, Internet Explorer 11, Safari and Firefox, guests can join by link or be reached via the Call Me phone numbers, and live captions can be toggled per participant with a language choice — though only for live-streamed events. We found no public information on an accessibility statement, keyboard and screen-reader support, mobile apps, or documented behaviour on low bandwidth. 2 6 7
The Educator
Joining from a browser is documented across Chrome, Edge, Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer 11 without a forced install, guests can be invited by email link, and dial-in numbers can be listed for guests — good news for my phone-only people. Live captions exist only for live-stream events and require live streaming to be enabled first, and we found no public information on an accessibility statement, keyboard or screen-reader support, mobile apps, or documented low-bandwidth behaviour. 2 6 7
The Accessibility Advocate
Browser joining across five browsers, a join URL, and a main dial-in number with up to three additions (US number displayed by default) are documented. But the only live captions documented are for live-stream events gated behind Live Streaming — we found no public information on captions in ordinary meetings, keyboard or screen-reader operation, a published accessibility conformance report, or any accessibility statement, which for me means a deaf colleague and a screen-reader user can attend but cannot run this meeting on the evidence shown. 2 6 7
The Skeptic
Browser joining is documented across five browsers with guests joining by URL, and invitations can carry a main number plus up to three additional numbers with a US number as the default — but the captured pages show no list of dial-in numbers by region. Live captions exist only for live-stream participants, and we found no public information on mobile apps, keyboard or screen-reader operation, or an accessibility statement. 2 6 7
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
Organisation-level control exists — Record and Share is enabled at account level with sharing restrictable to specific users, admins manage every recording in the library, and auto-recording is an admin toggle that starts when two participants join. But I found no public information on participant notification or consent, the storage region, a retention or deletion policy for recordings, or access logs; the only expiry rule I could find governs inactive meetings, not recordings. 2 8 9
The Security Officer
Admin control is genuine: Record and Share is enabled at account level, admins manage every recording in the library, sharing defaults to specific users, and uploads are limited to admins and super users. I found no public information on participant notification or consent, storage region, retention or deletion — while auto-recording starts as soon as two participants join and can only be stopped by ending the meeting, and room systems record all callers by default. 2 8 9
The Works Council Advocate
There is genuine organisation-wide control: recording can be enabled or disabled at account level, admins manage every recording in the library, and sharing can be restricted to specific users. But an option to auto-record every meeting from the moment two people join, stopped only by ending the meeting, is documented with no word of participant notification or consent, and we found no public information on storage region, retention and deletion rules for recordings, access logging, or any attendance or analytics feature that can be switched off for co-determination. 2 8 9
The Educator
There is real organisation-wide control: admins can enable Record and Share at account level, switch on automatic recording of all meetings, manage every recording, and restrict sharing to specific users by default. But we found no public information on participant notification or consent prompts, where recordings are stored, retention rules that execute automatically, or any access logging. 2 8 9
The Accessibility Advocate
Recording is controlled at account level — Record and Share can be enabled or disabled, sharing can be restricted to specific users, automatic recording is a toggle, and admins manage the entire recordings library with recording owner selection on room systems. We found no public information on participant notification or a consent prompt, the storage region, retention or deletion rules for recordings, or any access log — and the automatic recording option stops only when the meeting ends, which makes a notification question urgent. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
Record and Share is enabled at account level with sharing visibility configurable and admins able to manage every recording in the library, and automatic recording can be switched on or off — that is genuine organisation-wide control. But I found no storage region, no retention rule for recordings, no participant notification or consent prompt, and no audit trail of who accessed which recording. 2 8 9
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
Calendar integration covers Microsoft 365, Exchange 2013 and 2016, and Google Workspace, with dedicated room mailboxes feeding Icon systems that prompt you to join as you enter the room — exactly the room-system depth I want. SSO configuration exists in the admin console, though the protocol is not named. I found no public information on a documented API, SCIM provisioning, webhooks, embeddable SDKs, or a self-hosted deployment of the meeting service itself. 2 10 11
The Security Officer
Calendar integration covers Microsoft 365, Exchange 2013 and 2016, and Google Workspace, with Icon room systems prompted to join and showing the day's bookings, and an SSO Configuration section exists in the admin console. I found no public information on the SSO protocol, a scheduling API, provisioning, webhooks or embedding — the Skype for Business link is an add-on, and the only on-premises marker is a recording-focused UVC Video Center. 2 9 10 11
The Works Council Advocate
Calendar integration for Microsoft 365, Exchange 2013 and 2016 and Google Workspace is documented down to room-mailbox setup, room systems with the vendor's own hardware are first-class citizens, and an SSO configuration section exists in the admin console. We found no public information on a documented API, SCIM provisioning, webhooks or SDK embedding, or any self-hosted and private-cloud deployment. 2 10 11
The Educator
Calendar integration covers Microsoft 365, Exchange 2013/2016 and Google Workspace with genuine meeting-room behaviour on Icon systems, an SSO configuration area exists in the admin console, and a Skype for Business add-on is offered. We found no public information on a documented API, SCIM provisioning, SDKs or webhooks, and the only component evidenced in the customer's own environment is a recording video centre rather than the meeting service itself. 2 10 11
The Accessibility Advocate
Calendar integration is well evidenced for Microsoft 365, G Suite and Exchange with room systems front and centre, and an SSO configuration section exists in the admin console. We found no public information on a documented API, SCIM provisioning, webhooks or embeddable SDKs, and the only customer-environment component evidenced is a recording platform configured in the buyer's own setup — not a self-hosted deployment of the product. 2 9 10 11
The Skeptic
Calendar integration is documented for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace and on-premises Exchange versions feeding the Icon room systems, and an SSO configuration section plus a Skype for Business add-on are named. We found no public information on a documented API, SCIM provisioning, SDKs or webhooks, or on any self-hosted deployment of the service itself. 2 10 11
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
I found no public information on the contracting entity, ownership, where media and metadata are processed, or any subprocessor; the captured pages give me nothing to contract against. The only regional signals are US-centred — a US support line and a US default main phone number. For a European buyer this category is weighed heavily, and nothing published speaks to it. 1 2
The Security Officer
I found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, on the contracting entity, or on a single subprocessor, and no public information evidencing EU residency anywhere in the chain. What is visible points the other way: the main dial-in number defaults to the US, support is a US phone line, and meetings join through a lifesizecloud.com URL under the vendor name Lifesize, Inc. 1 2 6
The Works Council Advocate
Every captured page is US-facing — a 1-866 support line, the US number as the default dial-in, a lifesizecloud.com join domain — and we found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, the contracting entity and its jurisdiction, ownership, or a single named subprocessor. For a body that must answer where its members' voices are processed, this silence is itself the answer. 1 2 6
The Educator
The contracting entity's jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessors are all unknown, and we found no public information on where media or metadata are processed. The only geographic signals in the captured pages are a US support line and a US default dial-in number, which offer this buyer no European assurance at all. 1 2
The Accessibility Advocate
Every question I would put to this vendor goes unanswered publicly: contracting entity jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessors are all unknown, and the only regional signals anywhere are a US-by-default main dial-in number and a US support line. Weighted as heavily as this buyer weighs it, an information vacuum this complete is as bad as it gets. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or on a single subprocessor carrying the traffic; the only geographic signals in the captured pages are a US-default main number and a US support line. For a buyer who weighs this category heavily, that silence is the whole answer. 1 2
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
I found no public pricing information at all; the pages name Enterprise and Premium plans but never state a price, a billing period, participant caps, dial-in rates or recording storage. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from what is published. 10
The Security Officer
I found no public price, billing period, capacity limit or add-on rate on any captured page — there is nothing a buyer could compute an invoice from. The only pricing-adjacent fact is a plan reference naming 'Enterprise and Premium customers' for calendar integration: tier names with no figures attached. 10
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on prices, billing periods, capacity limits, dial-in rates or recording storage allowances; the only trace of a commercial structure anywhere is the plan names Enterprise and Premium. A buyer cannot even begin to compute an annual invoice from the public pages. 10
The Educator
No prices of any kind appear in the captured pages — only plan names, Enterprise and Premium, in the calendar integration material. A buyer cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from public information, and we found no public information on per-host pricing, capacity limits, dial-in rates or storage allowances. 10
The Accessibility Advocate
We found no public price information at all — no per-host rates, no capacity limits, no dial-in rates, no storage allowances — and the only plan-related fact on the captured pages is that Enterprise and Premium customer plans exist by name in the calendar integration overview. A buyer cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from this. 10
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Lifesize
Is Lifesize European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Lifesize is based.
Where does Lifesize store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Lifesize have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lifesize?
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: Lifesize alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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 (lifesize.com, support.lifesize.com/product/lifesize-admin-console/account-settings/meeting-settings, support.lifesize.com/product/web-and-desktop-app/users/home-screen-overview/in-call-activities/add-a-participant, support.lifesize.com/resource/lifesize-security-overview, support.lifesize.com/product/lifesize-icon-400-450-600-800/preferences-and-protocols/sip/media-encryption-in-sip-calls, support.lifesize.com/product/web-and-desktop-app/users/live-stream/accessing-the-apps/join-from-a-browser and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 14 product 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 legal 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
- 1 support 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
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 The meeting itself — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 The meeting itself — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap support.lifesize.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →