Video Conferencing

TeamViewer Meeting

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel 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.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The IT Administrator v1.0 · The Security Officer v1.0 · The Works Council Advocate v1.0 · The Educator v1.0 · The Accessibility Advocate v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 22 Sep 2026

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Accessibility Advocate

Weighted verdict

Judges the product by whether a deaf colleague and a screen-reader user can run the meeting, not merely attend it. Wants live captions, keyboard operation, a published conformance report, and dial-in for people with no usable connection. Treats an accessibility page with no report as a marketing page.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Accessibility Advocate

The meeting itself

How this is scored

Whether the call works: participant capacity, video and audio quality under load, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation, and what happens on a bad connection.

0 — Small meetings only, no screen sharing worth the name, no moderation controls, and the call degrades without telling anyone.

3 — Standard meetings with screen sharing and mute-all, but low participant limits, no breakout rooms and no bandwidth adaptation stated.

5 — Meetings at the scale most teams need with screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, and documented behaviour on constrained connections.

8 — Large meetings and webinars with published capacity limits, per-participant moderation and waiting rooms, layout control, simulcast or adaptive bitrate stated, and reliable behaviour on mobile networks.

10 — Scale and control are engineering claims the vendor stands behind: capacity published per plan and per region, selective forwarding with adaptive quality documented, live streaming, hardware-room support, and diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

The 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

Report an error

Encryption & meeting access

How this is scored

What is actually encrypted and against whom, plus who can get into a meeting. Judged on documented mechanism rather than on the word "encrypted".

0 — Transport encryption only, undocumented; meetings joinable by anyone with a link and no lobby.

3 — TLS in transit and encryption at rest, with the vendor holding all keys; access control is a passcode.

5 — The above plus a lobby or waiting room, host-controlled admission, per-meeting passcodes, and a clear statement that the vendor can technically access media.

8 — Optional end-to-end encryption for meetings with the trade-offs named (which features stop working), documented key handling, SSO-gated joining, and per-meeting access policies.

10 — End-to-end encryption available without surrendering the product — its cryptography documented or open source, key management explained, identity verification for participants, and the vendor stating plainly what it can and cannot see.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

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

Report an error

Reach & accessibility

How this is scored

Whether everyone who needs to join can: browser without an install, dial-in, low bandwidth, guests without accounts, captions and keyboard operation.

0 — A desktop client is the only way in; guests must create an account.

3 — Browser joining exists but is degraded, guests can join by link, and there is no dial-in and no accessibility statement.

5 — Full-feature browser joining without an install, guest access by link, mobile apps, and a stated accessibility posture.

8 — Telephone dial-in with numbers listed, live captions, keyboard-navigable and screen-reader-tested interface, and documented low-bandwidth behaviour.

10 — Reach is designed for: browser parity with the client, dial-in across the regions the customer operates in, live captions and translation, a published accessibility conformance report, and a usable experience on a poor mobile connection.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

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

Report an error

Recordings, retention & admin control

How this is scored

A recording is personal data about everyone in the room. Who may record, who is told, where it is stored, how long it lives, and what the works council can switch off.

0 — Anyone can record, storage location unstated, no retention rule, no admin policy.

3 — Host-only recording with a notification, but storage region unstated, retention manual, and no organisation-wide policy control.

5 — Admin policy over who may record, participant notification and consent prompt, stated storage region, and manual deletion that works.

8 — Automatic retention and deletion per policy, recordings encrypted at rest with access logged, transcription handled with its own retention rule, and attendance or analytics features that can be switched off for co-determination.

10 — Built for a works agreement: every recording, transcript and analytics feature independently switchable and documented, retention executed and evidenced, an audit trail of who accessed which recording, and no participant-level behavioural scoring at all.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

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

Report an error

Integrations & deployment

How this is scored

Calendar, identity and the wider stack — plus, in this category, whether the product can be run on the customer's own infrastructure at all.

0 — No calendar integration, no SSO, no API; cloud-only with no alternative.

3 — One calendar integration and basic SSO, no API worth building on, cloud-only.

5 — Calendar integration for the major suites, SAML or OIDC SSO, a documented API for scheduling, and room-system support.

8 — The above plus SCIM provisioning, embedding via SDK, webhooks for meeting events, and either a self-hosted option or a documented private-cloud deployment.

10 — Deployment is the customer's choice: a genuine on-premises or private-cloud option with the same features, open protocols or open source, embeddable SDKs, and identity integration that does not require the vendor's directory.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where media and metadata are processed, who the contracting entity is, which subprocessors carry the traffic. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it — which in this category is heavily.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, media routed through unstated regions, subprocessors unnamed.

3 — EU data residency for storage while media relays or metadata remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.

5 — EU hosting and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — relays, analytics, support tooling, transcription — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.

8 — Media and metadata processed in the EU on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: media never leaves the EU, every subprocessor European, certification published, and an on-premises option that removes the question entirely.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

The contracting entity 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the annual invoice for their host count — including the capacity, dial-in and recording storage they actually need — from public pages alone.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A per-host headline exists, but participant caps, dial-in minutes or recording storage are unpriced or unmentioned.

5 — Per-host prices public with billing period stated and capacity limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (webinar capacity, dial-in, storage) sits in an unpriced add-on.

8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with per-host maths, capacity limits, dial-in rates, storage allowances, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.

10 — Complete price computability: a calculator producing the annual invoice for a given host count, meeting size and recording volume, including overage and per-region dial-in.

Report an error

The Accessibility Advocate

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

3 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

Do you know more about TeamViewer Meeting? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →