Video Conferencing
LiveWebinar
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by LiveWebinar · www.livewebinar.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.
LiveWebinar at a glance
- Vendor
- LiveWebinar
- 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 LiveWebinar 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. LiveWebinar is a cloud-based video conferencing and webinar product. 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
LiveWebinar is a cloud-based video conferencing and webinar product. The strongest verdict comes on integrations, scoring 5 to 6 with five of six judges at 6, for a documented API covering room lifecycle, OAuth2 and server-to-server JWT, JavaScript embedding, a WordPress plugin and Zapier calendar sync. The meeting itself scores a uniform 4: screen sharing down to mobile devices and a host-controlled waiting room are evidenced, while we found no public information on breakout rooms, mute-all moderation, or behaviour on a constrained connection. Judges genuinely split on encryption and access (4 to 6) and reach and accessibility (4 to 6): documented admission controls such as a unique session token per participant earn credit, the one-sentence end-to-end AES-256 claim with no key handling loses it, and browser and phone-bridge reach scores high where the undocumented accessibility posture holds scores down. Weakest are recording governance (2 to 3) and sovereignty (0 to 1): the only infrastructure statement is "42+ data centers" described as global, and we found no published price on any tier.
Speaks for it
- Integrations score 5 to 6 on a documented API with OAuth2 and server-to-server JWT, room lifecycle operations, JavaScript embedding, custom room domains, a WordPress plugin and Zapier calendar sync
- Admission control is documented: a host-controlled waiting room, a unique session token per participant, single sign-on and role-based access
- Reach is broad — browser joining without an install, an iOS app, Smart TVs and mobile devices, plus a phone bridge for calling in from a cell phone
- Recordings can be automatically uploaded to the customer's own Amazon S3 or FTP storage, with FPS from 12 to 30, dimensions and bitrate configurable depending on the package
- Screen sharing is documented in a dedicated FAQ down to mobile devices
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 0 to 1: the only infrastructure statement is "42+ data centers Cloud-based, global infrastructure", and we found no public information on the contracting entity, data residency, ownership or any subprocessor
- Recording governance scores 2 to 3: we found no public information on who may record, participant notification or consent, retention rules, storage region or access logging, while engagement analytics and tracking are advertised with no stated off-switch
- The "double encryption" end-to-end AES-256 claim is a single sentence with no key handling, no named trade-offs and no statement of what the vendor can technically see
- We found no public information on breakout rooms, mute-all or comparable moderation, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection beyond a pre-call connection test
- We found no public information on an accessibility statement, a conformance report, or keyboard and screen-reader support behind the closed-captioning FAQ page
Best for
- You need to embed meeting rooms under your own domain and drive the full room lifecycle through a documented API with OAuth2 or server-to-server JWT credentials
- You want finished recordings uploaded automatically to your own Amazon S3 or FTP storage rather than held by the vendor
- You host large webinars — the vendor states 1000+ participants — with screen sharing down to mobile devices and host-controlled waiting-room admission
- Your audience reaches the room from browsers without an install, from Smart TVs or mobile devices, or by cell phone through the phone bridge (a paid add-on or Custom-plan feature)
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires a stated data-residency region, a contracting-entity jurisdiction or a named subprocessor — the only infrastructure statement is "42+ data centers" described as global, and one judge called that silence disqualifying for European procurement at this stage
- Your works council or compliance team must see who may record, how participants are notified and consent, and the retention and access-logging rules — we found no public information on any of these
- Your security sign-off requires documented key handling behind an end-to-end encryption claim — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You run sessions that depend on breakout rooms or mute-all moderation, or on predictable behaviour for participants on a weak connection — only a pre-meeting connection test is documented
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| The meeting itself | 2 of 5 |
| Encryption & meeting access | 3 of 5 |
| Reach & accessibility | 2.5 of 5 |
| Recordings, retention & admin control | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & deployment | 3 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
Screen sharing is properly documented down to mobile, and the waiting room gives the host real admission control, but the "1000+ participants" figure is a marketing claim rather than capacity published per plan. I found no public information on breakout rooms, bandwidth adaptation under load, or any diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call — the closest thing is a pre-meeting connection test. 1 2 5
The Security Officer
A thousand-plus participant claim, screen sharing including on mobile devices, and a host-run waiting room with admission control are all evidenced. I found no public information on breakout rooms, per-participant moderation such as mute-all, adaptive quality, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection beyond a connection-test page. 1 2 5
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages show real scale — a thousand-plus participants, HD quality, screen sharing including on mobile, a whiteboard, and a waiting room where the host admits attendees — but we found no public information on breakout rooms, mute-all or comparable moderation controls, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection beyond a pre-call connection test. Scale is promised; control and what happens when the line is poor are not shown. 1 2 5
The Educator
A thousand-plus participant capacity, screen sharing that works on mobile, a whiteboard and a waiting room the host controls are all documented, which covers my classroom at scale. But I teach in breakouts and found no public information on breakout rooms, mute-all or other moderation controls, or documented behaviour on a bad connection — silence on exactly the things that decide whether a phone in a dead spot survives the lesson. 1 2 5
The Accessibility Advocate
A thousand-plus seat capacity, screen sharing documented down to mobile devices, and a host-controlled waiting room give this product real meeting bones. We found no public information on breakout rooms, mute-all moderation, or documented behaviour on a constrained connection — only a connection-test tool — so it sits between the standard and the fully documented meeting. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
A thousand-plus participant headline plus documented screen sharing, including a dedicated mobile FAQ, and a waiting room the host controls are the solid parts. I found no public information on breakout rooms, per-participant moderation such as mute-all, any published capacity per plan rather than one marketing number, or any stated behaviour on a constrained connection. 1 2 5
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 the documented part: per-participant session tokens against unauthorized joins, single sign-on, role-based access control, and a host-run waiting room with admission control. The AES-256 "double encryption" end-to-end claim is stated without any key-handling detail, feature trade-offs, or a plain statement of what the vendor can technically see, so I credit it as a claim, not a mechanism. 4 5
The Security Officer
The security page gives me a slogan — "double encryption" with AES-256 "end-to-end" — and no mechanism behind it: no key handling, no word on which meetings qualify, no named trade-offs even though chat transcripts and voicemail recordings are stored on the same platform. Waiting rooms with host-controlled admission and unique per-participant session tokens are real, documented access controls; the encryption claim itself I treat as a question rather than an answer. 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
Access control is genuinely evidenced — single sign-on, a unique session token per participant, role-based access with predefined roles, and a host-controlled waiting room. The end-to-end encryption claim rests on a single sentence about double AES-256 encryption with no documented key handling, no named trade-offs, and no plain statement of what the vendor can and cannot see, so I score the mechanism rather than the word. 4 5
The Educator
The security page asserts end-to-end AES-256 'double encryption' and documents real admission mechanics — a waiting room, the host letting attendees in, a unique session token per participant, SSO and role-based access. But the cryptography is asserted rather than shown: I found no public information on key handling, on which features stop working under end-to-end encryption, or on what the vendor can and cannot see. 4 5
The Accessibility Advocate
The security page asserts end-to-end AES-256 encryption in a sentence, with no key handling, no trade-offs named and no plain statement of what the vendor can technically see — I judge mechanism, not adjectives. What is documented is admission control: waiting rooms with host-controlled entry, unique per-participant session tokens, single sign-on and role-based access. 4 5
The Skeptic
The security page offers one sentence — "double encryption provides full meeting security with an end-to-end encryption using the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 256-bit algorithm" — with no documented key handling, no list of which features stop working under it, and no statement of what the vendor can technically see. Access control is better evidenced: host-controlled waiting-room admission, a unique session token per participant, single sign-on and role-based access are each described, but I found no public information on per-meeting passcodes or encryption at rest. 4 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 without an install, iOS and cross-platform apps, and a phone bridge for calling in from a cell phone are all documented, and a closed-captioning help page exists. I found no public accessibility statement, no listed dial-in numbers, and nothing on behaviour on a poor connection; the phone bridge is a custom-plan feature or paid add-on rather than a standard inclusion. 1 6 7
The Security Officer
Browser joining without an install, an iOS app, Smart TV and conferencing-system reach, a phone bridge for calling in from a cell phone, a dedicated closed-captioning page, and guest access by generated room URL are all evidenced. I found no public information on an accessibility statement, keyboard or screen-reader testing, published dial-in numbers, or low-bandwidth behaviour — dial-in and captions exist in substance, but the accessibility posture is undocumented. 1 6 7 10
The Works Council Advocate
Joining needs no install — browser, smart TVs, mobile devices and an iOS app are all shown — and a phone bridge lets people call in from a cell phone, available as an add-on or in the custom plan. We found no public information on an accessibility statement, keyboard or screen-reader support, published dial-in numbers, or behaviour on a poor connection; a closed-captioning help page appears among the captured pages but nothing about captions is confirmed. 1 7 6
The Educator
Joining from a browser with nothing to install, iOS apps, smart TVs and a phone bridge for calling in on a cell phone mean most of my thirty could get in somehow, though the phone bridge is available as a paid add-on. I found no public information on live captions, an accessibility statement or screen-reader and keyboard support, and nothing documented about low-bandwidth behaviour — for half my class on a weak signal, that gap is the story. 1 7
The Accessibility Advocate
Browser joining without an install, mobile apps, guest links carrying a nickname parameter and a phone bridge get people into the room, and a closed-captioning FAQ page exists. But we found no public information on an accessibility statement, a published conformance report, keyboard or screen-reader support, or low-bandwidth behaviour — a captioning page with no conformance report behind it is a marketing page, and until a deaf colleague and a screen-reader user can run the meeting rather than merely attend it, this stays below the line. 1 6 7 10
The Skeptic
Browser joining without an install, an iOS app, and link-based joining with a passed nickname are documented, and a phone bridge lets people call in from a cell phone — though it is sold as an add-on or bundled with the Custom plan, with no numbers listed and no dial-in minutes priced. A closed-captioning FAQ page exists in the vendor's sitemap, but I found no confirmed statement on captions, keyboard navigation, screen-reader testing, or any published accessibility posture. 1 7 6
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
Recording itself is well built — HD/FHD, configurable FPS and bitrate, and automatic upload to the customer's own S3 or FTP, which puts the storage destination under customer control. But I found no public information on who may record, participant notification or consent, retention rules, organisation-wide admin policy, or access logging, and those omissions are exactly what a works council asks about first. 4 8 9
The Security Officer
Recordings can be auto-uploaded to the customer's own S3 or FTP storage and downloaded manually — the strongest governance facts here — while chat transcripts and voicemail recordings are also stored "in a fully protected environment" with no detail on what that means. I found no public information on who may record, participant notification or consent, retention rules, storage region, organisation-wide admin policy, or any access logging. 4 8 9
The Works Council Advocate
A recording is personal data about everyone in the room, and on governance the captured pages are nearly silent: we found no public information on who may record, whether participants are notified, retention rules, access logging, or any organisation-wide policy, while audience engagement analytics and tracking are advertised with no stated off-switch. The one point I can welcome is that recordings can be uploaded automatically to the customer's own S3 or FTP storage, with recording quality and language configurable. 1 8 9
The Educator
Recordings can be auto-uploaded to our own S3 or FTP server with manual download, and recording storage is metered in hours, so the archive can at least live under our roof. Beyond that I found no public information on who may record, whether participants are notified or asked to consent, retention rules, storage region, or organisation-wide admin policy — nothing a works council could hold onto. 8 9
The Accessibility Advocate
Recordings can be automatically uploaded to your own S3 or FTP storage with manual download — the one genuine control here, and it takes custody away from the vendor. We found no public information on who may record, participant notification or consent, storage region beyond "global", retention rules, admin policy or access logs, and audience-engagement analytics and tracking are advertised with no information on switching them off for co-determination. 1 8 9
The Skeptic
Recording is documented on the output side — HD/FHD, adjustable FPS, dimensions and bitrate by package, automatic upload to the customer's own S3 or FTP, manual download — but I found no public information on who may record, participant notification or consent, the storage region of recordings kept on the vendor's side, any retention or deletion rule, or any access logging. Routing storage to infrastructure the customer chooses is the only governance lever the pages actually evidence. 8 9 1
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 API is the strong card: documented to cover everything the web client and account panel can do, with OAuth2 and server-to-server JWT, room lifecycle operations, embeddable rooms served from the customer's own domain, and a WordPress plugin. Calendar sync arrives only through Zapier rather than a native integration, single sign-on is claimed without a stated protocol, and I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks, or a self-hosted or private-cloud option — the product presents itself as cloud-based on global data centers. 1 4 10 11
The Security Officer
The API is documented to cover every operation available in the client, with OAuth2 and server-to-server JWT, JavaScript embedding, custom room domains, role tokens and a WordPress plugin — more than a scheduling API. Calendar sync runs through Zapier rather than natively, SSO is asserted without SAML or OIDC being named, and I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks for meeting events, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option — the product is cloud-based on the vendor's global data centers. 1 4 10 11
The Works Council Advocate
The API is unusually strong and documented — everything the web client can do, OAuth2 and JWT credentials, role tokens, personal room URLs, JavaScript embedding and a custom domain — with Zapier covering calendar sync and marketing tools, and single sign-on claimed on the security page. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, native webhooks, or any self-hosted or private-cloud deployment; the product is presented as cloud-based on global infrastructure. 10 11 4 1
The Educator
The API is the strong suit — OAuth2 or server-to-server JWT, room create, update and delete, JavaScript embeds, custom room domains, WordPress, and Zapier for calendar sync. The single sign-on statement names no standard such as SAML or OIDC, and I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks for meeting events, or a self-hosted deployment; the infrastructure described is cloud-based across 42-plus data centres. 1 4 10 11
The Accessibility Advocate
A documented API claiming every operation possible in the web client, OAuth2 and server-to-server JWT, JavaScript embedding, a WordPress plugin, custom room domains and Zapier-based calendar sync make the stack genuinely connectable. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, native webhooks, room-system support beyond a vague "conferencing systems" reach claim, the SSO method behind the single sign-on claim, or a self-hosted deployment. 1 4 10 11
The Skeptic
The API is the strongest thing here and it is documented: OAuth2 and server-to-server JWT, room create, update and delete, role tokens, custom room domains, JavaScript embedding, a WordPress plugin, and calendar sync to Google and other suites via Zapier. I found no public information on SCIM provisioning, webhooks for meeting events, or any self-hosted or private-cloud option — the product is presented as cloud-based across 42-plus data centers. 10 11 1 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 captured pages give no contracting entity, no data-residency commitment and no subprocessor list at all; the only infrastructure statement is "42+ data centers" described as global with no region named for media or metadata. I weigh this heavily, and for European procurement that silence is disqualifying at this stage. 1
The Security Officer
The only placement statement anywhere is "42+ data centers Cloud-based, global infrastructure", which names no region, and I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, data residency commitments, or a single subprocessor. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, an entirely undocumented chain with explicitly global routing sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only infrastructure statement on the captured pages is global infrastructure across 42-plus data centers; we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where media and metadata are processed, or a single named subprocessor. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, that is close to nothing to stand on. 1
The Educator
I found no public information on the contracting entity, its jurisdiction, ownership, where media and metadata are processed, or any subprocessor at all; the only infrastructure statement is 'global' across 42-plus data centres with no region named. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, there is almost nothing published to stand on. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
Forty-two-plus data centres described as global infrastructure, and we found no public information on the contracting entity, data residency, ownership or any subprocessor list. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, nothing in the captured pages is evidenced as European, and the only lever is routing finished recordings to your own Amazon S3 or FTP storage after the fact. 1 8
The Skeptic
Everything I weigh here is unstated: the pages give a count of 42-plus data centers described only as global infrastructure, with no region named for media or metadata, no contracting-entity jurisdiction, and no subprocessor list at all. Customer-owned S3 or FTP storage is the one place where location becomes the customer's decision, and it covers recordings, not live traffic. 1 9
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
No price figure appears anywhere in the captured pages — not a per-host amount, not a billing period — and recording frame rates that "depend on the package" are never priced either. Tiers are implied only by a "Custom plan" and add-on purchases, which is the definition of a sales conversation, and I found no public information on capacity limits, dial-in rates or storage allowances per plan. 7 8
The Security Officer
I found no prices on the captured pages: the phone bridge is sold as an add-on to plans that are never priced, recording settings come in packages without figures, and recording storage is counted in hours with no allowance stated. Nothing published lets a buyer compute any part of an annual invoice. 7 8 9
The Works Council Advocate
The pages name plan structures — a custom plan, add-ons such as the phone bridge, package-dependent recording frame rates and recording storage measured in hours — but we found no public prices for any tier, no per-host figures, no dial-in rates and no storage or recording-hour allowances with figures. A buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from what has been captured. 7 8 9
The Educator
No price appears in the captured pages — not per host, not per tier; the phone bridge is described as purchasable 'as an add-on' and recording storage is metered in hours, but neither carries a figure. A school office could not compute even a rough annual invoice from what is published here. 7 9
The Accessibility Advocate
The captured pages name a "Custom plan" and a phone-bridge add-on, and we found no public price on any tier — no per-host figure, billing period, capacity price or VAT treatment. Recording storage is measured in hours and regular storage in megabytes, and we found no published rate for either, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. 7 9
The Skeptic
I found no public price on any captured page — not a per-host figure, not a billing period, not a rate for the phone-bridge add-on, and no monetary allowance for recording hours or storage. Plan names and an add-on structure are visible, so a buyer can see that tiers exist, but computing an annual invoice from public pages alone is impossible. 7 8 1
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 LiveWebinar
Is LiveWebinar European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where LiveWebinar is based.
Where does LiveWebinar store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does LiveWebinar have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to LiveWebinar?
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: LiveWebinar 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.
- 10 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 integrations 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 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 pricing 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
- 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 (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.livewebinar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →