Video Conferencing
TeamViewer Meeting
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by TeamViewer SE · www.teamviewer.com
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 panel's verdict
The captured vendor pages market TeamViewer's remote IT access, endpoint management and augmented-reality platform; the judges found no public information on the meeting itself — participant capacity, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation, behaviour on a bad connection — and meeting core sits at 0-1. Integrations is the strongest criterion at 1-2, resting on a stated integrations catalogue and advertised add-ons, though no calendar suite, single sign-on method, API or self-hosted option is named. Encryption and access also runs 1-2: ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 and 3, HIPAA/HITECH and a BitSight rating in the top 1% of the technology industry attest a security programme, while nothing published covers meeting encryption, key handling or admission control. Reach and accessibility and recording governance sit at 0-1, with no public information on browser joining, dial-in, captions, or who may record a meeting. Sovereignty scores 1-2; no sovereignty attributes are on record, the only European signals cited being the vendor's European legal form and German-language pages. Scores vary by at most one point on every criterion. A free trial and add-ons are offered; no prices are published.
Speaks for it
- Publishes ISO/IEC 27001 certification plus SOC 2 and 3 and HIPAA/HITECH conformance statements on the vendor page
- Carries a BitSight security rating in the top 1% of the technology industry
- States an integrations catalogue alongside add-ons, the highest-scoring criterion at 1-2
- Offers a free trial
- Names enterprise, NPO and education offerings
Held against it
- No public information on participant capacity, screen sharing, breakout rooms or moderation, leaving meeting core at 0-1
- No public information on what a meeting encrypts, who holds keys, or how admission is controlled, with encryption and access at 1-2
- No public information on browser joining, guest access, telephone dial-in or captions, with reach and accessibility at 0-1
- No public information on who may record, participant notification, storage or retention, with recording governance at 0-1
- No sovereignty attributes on record, and no public information on where meeting media is processed or which subprocessors carry it
Best for
- You already run TeamViewer's remote-support and endpoint-management platform and want to evaluate its meeting offering through the free trial
- Your procurement requires a vendor with ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 and 3 and HIPAA/HITECH statements on record
- You are an NPO or educational institution and the vendor names offerings for such organisations
Avoid if
- You need documented meeting capacity, moderation controls and breakout-room behaviour before sign-off
- Your colleagues need browser joining without an install, telephone dial-in or live captions to attend
- A works council or data-protection review requires documented recording, consent, storage and retention controls
- You must know where meeting media and metadata are processed and which subprocessors carry them before contracting
The scores
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
I judge a product by its worst meeting, and the captured page publishes nothing on participant capacity, screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, or behaviour on a bad connection — capacity is promised nowhere, so I cannot stand behind it in an outage review. The page markets remote support, endpoint management and AR workflows, and meeting mechanics get no coverage at all. 1
The Security Officer
The captured pages describe remote support, endpoint management and augmented-reality workflows rather than meetings; we found no public information on participant capacity, video and audio quality under load, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation controls, or what happens on a constrained connection. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page sells remote IT access, endpoint management and augmented-reality workflows; we found no public information on the meeting itself — participant capacity, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation, or behaviour on a bad connection. I cannot tell colleagues how the call works, because nothing captured says. 1
The Educator
I teach thirty people at a time and the captured page tells me nothing about the meeting itself: no participant capacity, no screen sharing, no breakout rooms, no host moderation, and no word on what happens when someone's connection degrades. The page markets remote IT access, endpoint management and augmented-reality workflows instead, and I found no public information on any meeting basic I depend on. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
The captured pages describe remote support, endpoint management, automation and augmented-reality workflows, and I found no public information on meeting capacity, video quality, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation controls or behaviour on a bad connection. There is nothing here that evidences a call carrying a real team meeting. 1
The Skeptic
Every confirmed fact on the captured pages concerns remote IT access, endpoint management, augmented reality and AI support; I found no public information on participant capacity, screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, or what happens to a call on a bad connection. For the meeting itself there is nothing here to evaluate. 1
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
ISO/IEC 27001 certification and SOC 2 and SOC 3 attestations are on the page, which tells me an audit happened, but I found no public information on what is actually encrypted in a meeting, who holds the keys, waiting rooms, per-meeting passcodes, or SSO-gated joining. I score mechanism rather than certificates, and the mechanism is undocumented here. 1
The Security Officer
I read 'encrypted' as a question, and nothing captured answers it: no statement of what is encrypted in transit or at rest, who holds the keys, whether end-to-end encryption exists, or what stops a stranger with a link from joining. The certifications quoted (ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 and 3, HIPAA/HITECH) attest an information-security programme, not a media-encryption mechanism or a meeting-access design. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Certifications are on the page — ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 and 3, HIPAA/HITECH — but we found no public information on what is actually encrypted, who holds the keys, lobby or admission control, or whether the vendor can technically access meeting media. Judged on documented mechanism rather than certificates, almost nothing is documented. 1
The Educator
The only security evidence is certification-shaped — ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 and SOC 3, HIPAA/HITECH and a BitSight rating — which attests to a security programme but says nothing about what is encrypted in a call or who holds the keys. I found no public information on media encryption, key handling, waiting rooms, lobby or meeting admission controls. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 and 3 and HIPAA conformance are named, which speaks to organisational security practice but says nothing about what protects a meeting or who may enter one. I found no public information on media encryption mechanisms, key handling, lobbies, admission control or end-to-end encryption. 1
The Skeptic
ISO/IEC 27001 certification, SOC 2 and 3, and a HIPAA/HITECH statement evidence an organisational security programme, but I found no public information on what is encrypted in a meeting, who holds the keys, or how admission to a meeting is controlled. No sentence says which meetings, on which plan, receive any form of end-to-end encryption. 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
I found no public information on joining from a browser without an install, telephone dial-in numbers, live captions, keyboard and screen-reader operation, or guest access without an account. No accessibility posture and no low-bandwidth behaviour are published on the captured page, so I cannot confirm that everyone who needs to join actually can. 1
The Security Officer
We found no public information on joining from a browser without an install, guest access without an account, telephone dial-in, captions, or keyboard and screen-reader operation; the captured material speaks only to remote-support and endpoint products, not to how broadly a meeting participant can join. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on joining from a browser, guest access, telephone dial-in, captions, keyboard operation or low-bandwidth behaviour. Shift workers and colleagues with disabilities have no published basis for getting into a meeting. 1
The Educator
Half my class joins from a phone in a dead spot, and the captured page gives me nothing on browser joining without an install, guest access without an account, telephone dial-in, captions, keyboard operation or documented low-bandwidth behaviour. I found no public information on any of it. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
This is the criterion I weigh hardest, and I found no public information on browser joining without an install, guest access, dial-in, live captions, keyboard navigation, screen-reader testing or any accessibility statement at all. On this evidence I cannot see that a deaf colleague or a screen-reader user could even attend a meeting, let alone run one. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on browser joining, guest access without an account, telephone dial-in numbers, live captions, or any stated accessibility posture for the meeting product. 1
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
A recording is personal data about everyone in the room, and I found no public information on who may record, participant notification, storage region, retention rules, or admin policy controls that a works council could rely on. Recordings are simply not covered on the captured page, so governance is unevidenced rather than merely thin. 1
The Security Officer
A recording is personal data about everyone in the room, and we found no public information on who may record, whether participants are notified or asked to consent, where recordings are stored, how long they live, or which policies an administrator can enforce. The insights and real-time device data described concern managed endpoints, not meeting recordings. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page is silent on what decides co-determination: we found no public information on who may record, whether participants are told, where a recording is stored, how long it lives, or whether attendance and engagement analytics can be switched off outright. A recording of a works meeting is personal data about everyone in the room, and nothing published speaks to its governance. 1
The Educator
A recording of my class is personal data about every student in the room, and I found no public information on who may record, whether participants are notified, where recordings are stored, how long they live, or any organisation-wide policy an admin can set. Nothing captured lets a works council switch a single recording or analytics feature off. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
I 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 what an organisation-wide policy can switch off. With nothing evidenced on any element, this sits at the bottom by default. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on who may record a meeting, whether participants are notified, where recordings are stored, or any retention rule or organisation-wide policy, and recording is absent from the confirmed facts entirely. 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 page states the product is integrable into your systems and advertises add-ons, but it names no calendar suite, no SSO mechanism, no documented API and no room-system support — as the one who owns identity, I found no public information on SSO specifically. I also found no public information on a self-hosted or private-cloud deployment option. 1
The Security Officer
The pages name an integrations catalogue and 'powerful add-ons', but we found no public information on calendar suites, single sign-on protocols, a documented scheduling API, room systems, or a self-hosted and on-premises option. No specific integration is named anywhere in the captured text. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A general integrations catalogue and an enterprise pitch are offered, but we found no public information on calendar suites, single sign-on methods, an API for scheduling, room systems, or any self-hosted deployment. Whether the product can run on infrastructure we control is the question that matters most here, and nothing captured speaks to it. 1
The Educator
The page states that integrations exist — "In Ihre Systeme integrierbar" with a link to view all integrations — and mentions powerful add-ons, but names no calendar suite, no SAML or OIDC single sign-on, no documented API and no self-hosted deployment. A catalogue pointer is a start, though I found no public information on what is actually in it for meetings. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
The captured page points to an integration catalogue and names enterprise offerings and add-ons, which is a real but unspecified signal. I found no public information on calendar integration with the major suites, single sign-on via SAML or OIDC, a documented API, room-system support, or any self-hosted or private-cloud deployment. 1
The Skeptic
The pages state integrations exist ("In Ihre Systeme integrierbar") alongside add-ons, but I found no public information naming a calendar suite, single sign-on, a documented API, or a self-hosted or private-cloud deployment. The integration claim is a catalogue pointer with no meeting-specific detail behind it. 1
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 sovereignty record carries no attributes: I found no public information on where meeting media and metadata are processed, which subprocessors carry the traffic, or the contracting arrangements behind this workload. The German-language page is the only European signal, and media routing being unstated is something this buyer weighs heavily. 1
The Security Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on where meeting media and metadata are processed, the seat of the contracting entity, or a single named subprocessor carrying the traffic. Compliance certifications attest nothing about data location, and for a buyer who weighs this heavily, that silence decides the score. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, the contracting entity's location, or a single subprocessor carrying the traffic. The security certifications say nothing about where a meeting's data travels, and I weigh that silence heavily. 1
The Educator
The sovereignty record is empty: no attributes on file, nothing on where media and metadata are processed, no subprocessor list, and no stated contracting entity beyond the European company form in the vendor's name. For a category this buyer weighs heavily, that silence is the deciding fact. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
The contracting entity carries the European company form "SE" and the pages are German, which is the only European signal I can find, and no sovereignty attributes are on record. I found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, which infrastructure carries them, or which subprocessors are involved. 1
The Skeptic
I found no public information on where meeting media and metadata are processed, which subprocessors carry the traffic, or the contracting arrangement beyond the vendor's European legal form, and the sovereignty record on the vendor is empty. This buyer weights that silence heavily. 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
The page advertises a free trial and add-ons, but I found no public prices at all — no per-host figure, billing period, participant cap, dial-in rate or storage allowance that a buyer could use to compute an annual invoice. Buying this appears to start with a conversation rather than a number. 1
The Security Officer
A free trial and add-ons are advertised, but we found no public information on any price — no per-host figure, no billing period, no capacity limits, no dial-in rates or storage allowances — so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice for their host count from the captured pages. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A free trial and add-ons are named, but we found no public prices — no per-host figure, no billing period, no capacity limits, no dial-in or recording-storage terms. No buyer could compute an annual invoice from what is captured. 1
The Educator
I found no public prices on the captured page — no per-host figure, no billing period, no participant caps, dial-in rates or storage allowances; only a free trial and a mention of "Leistungstarke Add-ons" without prices. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from this. 1
The Accessibility Advocate
A free trial is offered and add-ons are advertised, but I found no public prices for any tier, no per-host figures, no billing period, no capacity limits, no dial-in rates and no storage allowances. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Skeptic
Only a free trial and the existence of "Leistungstarke Add-ons" are published; I found no per-host price, billing period, participant cap, dial-in rate or recording-storage allowance. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 | Incorporated in DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The imprint names two entities — TeamViewer Germany GmbH as provider of the website and TeamViewer SE for the Investor Relations content — but both are registered at the same Göppingen, Deutschland address, so the jurisdiction is Germany either way.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement appears only on the TeamViewer AI add-on page and says nothing about where the core platform or tenant-cloud data of other products is stored; the hosting named is US provider Microsoft Azure.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The named third-party processors cover only the AI workflows; the general subprocessor list is only referenced via a PDF link (media.teamviewer.com/.../teamviewer-third-party-terms-en.pdf) and is not among the excerpts, and Microsoft and Google are US-headquartered parents even though the storage is stated as EU-based.
- 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 (teamviewer.com, teamviewer.com/de/legal/imprint, teamviewer.com/de/products/add-ons/ai/security, teamviewer.com/en/legal/product-descriptions/teamviewer-meeting, teamviewer.com/en/global/support/knowledge-base/other-products/meeting, teamviewer.com/en/solutions/use-cases/end-to-end-encryption-e2ee and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 31 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
- 22 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
- 11 compliance 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
- 5 support 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
- 2 legal 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
- 2 subprocessors 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
- 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.teamviewer.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Imprint — found from the homepage www.teamviewer.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.teamviewer.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.teamviewer.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →