Video Conferencing
Tixeo
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Tixeo SAS · www.tixeo.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.
Tixeo at a glance
- Vendor
- Tixeo SAS
- 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 Tixeo 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Tixeo is secure video conferencing from a self-described independent French company hosting in Europe. 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
Tixeo is secure video conferencing from a self-described independent French company hosting in Europe. Its strongest ground is encryption and access at 8 to 9: end-to-end encryption is on by default for audio, video and data regardless of participant count, with per-connection Diffie-Hellman keys, customer-held keys under Augmented Security, ANSSI CSPN certification and source-code audits for some customers. Reach and accessibility holds at 6 with no spread: browser joining over WebRTC with no account or installation, apps on five platforms, bandwidth and CPU optimised for screen-magnifier and speech-synthesis users. Judges split on meeting core, 4 to 7: lower scores weigh absence of published participant capacity, breakout rooms and diagnostics, while higher scores credit tuned screen-sharing modes and SIP/H.323 room-system support. They also split on sovereignty, 4 to 7: vendor-stated European hosting and SecNumCloud qualification against independently collected attributes recording jurisdiction, residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown, with no subprocessor list found on the captured pages. Recording governance is the weak spot at 3 to 4; the captured pages show no prices, only a 30-day trial and a demo request.
Speaks for it
- End-to-end encryption is on by default for audio, video and data regardless of participant count, with per-connection Diffie-Hellman keys — encryption and access scored 8 to 9.
- Augmented Security lets the customer take control of the encryption key, and some customers may audit the source code.
- Deployment spans TixeoCloud, TixeoPrivateCloud and TixeoServer on the customer's own servers, including air-gapped networks.
- Guests join from a browser over WebRTC with no account or installation, and SIP/H.323 compatibility connects Poly, Cisco, LifeSize, Huawei and Avaya room systems.
- Bandwidth and CPU use is explicitly optimised for users running screen magnifiers or speech synthesis software.
Held against it
- Recording governance scored 3 to 4, with no public information on retention rules, deletion controls, storage region or an organisation-wide rule for who may record.
- Integrations scored 4 to 6, with no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, a documented API, SDKs or webhooks, and calendar coverage evidenced only as an Outlook add-in.
- The captured pages state no participant capacity for any offering, and we found no public information on breakout rooms or admin-readable diagnostics.
- Independently collected attributes record jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown, and we found no published subprocessor list on the captured pages.
- We found no public information on live captions during meetings or on a published accessibility conformance report; the AI transcripts shown apply to recordings.
Best for
- You run sensitive or restricted meetings and need end-to-end encryption on by default at any participant count, with the option to hold the key yourself under Augmented Security.
- You must keep the infrastructure in-house — TixeoServer deploys on-premise on your own servers and supports air-gapped networks.
- Your rooms are Poly, Cisco, LifeSize, Huawei or Avaya hardware joining over SIP or H.323, while external guests join from a browser without an account.
- Your staff include users of screen magnifiers or speech synthesis, for whom bandwidth and CPU use is explicitly optimised.
Avoid if
- You need a published participant capacity to plan a class or a large meeting — the captured pages state no capacity for any offering.
- Your rollout requires documented recording retention, deletion and storage-region rules before sign-off — recording governance scored 3 to 4 with no public information on them.
- Your participants depend on live captions during meetings — the AI transcripts and translations shown apply to recordings, and reach and accessibility scored 6.
- You need single sign-on, user provisioning or a documented API — integrations scored 4 to 6 and the captured pages evidence only an Outlook add-in for calendars.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| The meeting itself | 3 of 5 |
| Encryption & meeting access | 4.5 of 5 |
| Reach & accessibility | 3 of 5 |
| Recordings, retention & admin control | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & deployment | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3 of 5 |
The meeting itself
panel disagrees
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 SVC-on-demand adaptation to throughput, network quality and CPU, plus two tuned screen-sharing modes, is documented behaviour on constrained connections, and the SIP/H.323 gateway covers our Poly and Cisco rooms. But we found no public information on participant capacity for any plan, on breakout rooms, or on per-participant moderation beyond a waiting room — when a board call degrades I want published numbers and diagnostics to read afterwards, and neither is evidenced. 2 6 1 7
The Security Officer
Screen sharing is engineered rather than an afterthought: two content modes plus SVC on demand that adapts stream size to throughput, network quality and CPU, and the vendor states communications stay fluid on unstable connections. Waiting rooms, live streaming and SIP/H.323 room-system support are all documented. We found no public information on participant capacity limits, breakout rooms, per-participant moderation, or admin-readable diagnostics after a bad call. 1 2 6 7 9
The Works Council Advocate
Screen sharing is documented with two content modes, and SVC on-demand adaptation together with a stated promise that communications stay fluid without cut-offs on an unstable connection answers the bad-network question. Waiting rooms, an organiser hierarchy and a virtual waiting admission give basic moderation, and hardware rooms join over SIP and H.323. We found no public information on published participant capacities, breakout rooms, per-participant moderation or admin-readable diagnostics after a bad call. 1 2 6 7 9
The Educator
Screen sharing is well documented with two quality modes and adaptive stream sizing that accounts for throughput, network quality and CPU, and the pages state that communications stay fluid on an unstable connection — exactly what my people on a phone in a dead spot need, with a waiting room and live streaming on top. But the captured pages give no participant capacity and say nothing of breakout rooms — the virtual open-space is the nearest thing — so for a class of thirty I am left guessing whether the room holds us. 1 2 6 7 9
The Accessibility Advocate
Screen sharing is genuinely engineered — two quality modes selectable in the Share tab, SVC on demand adapting stream size to throughput, network quality, CPU and window size, and a stated promise that communications stay fluid on unstable connections. Live streaming and SIP/H.323 room-system compatibility are evidenced, but I found no public information on breakout rooms, published participant capacity, or diagnostics an admin could read after a bad call. 2 6 7 9
The Skeptic
Screen sharing is properly documented with two content modes and SVC on demand adapting stream size to throughput, network quality and CPU, and the pages promise fluid calls on unstable connections. But the pages state no participant capacity for any offering, and I found no public information on breakout rooms or in-meeting moderation such as mute-all and host layout control. 1 2 7
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
End-to-end encryption is on by default for audio, video and data with per-connection Diffie-Hellman keys, user-held keys under Augmented Security, a participant-entered secret code, MFA and a waiting room — and recording and the AI assistant stay compatible with the encryption, so the usual trade-offs mostly disappear, with ANSSI CSPN certification and customer source-code audits behind the claims. We found no public information on SSO-gated joining or a plain statement of what the vendor can and cannot see, which keeps this short of the top. 1 4 5 9
The Security Officer
This is the vendor's strongest ground: end-to-end encryption is on by default for audio, video and data at any participant count, the mechanism is documented — Diffie-Hellman with a fresh key per connection — and users can take control of the key themselves through Augmented Security, while admission rests on waiting rooms, multi-factor authentication and minimal guest rights. A secret code entered by every participant derives a dedicated encrypted tunnel, which functions as participant verification, and ANSSI CSPN certification plus customer source-code audits make the claims checkable rather than decorative. What I found no public information on is which features stop working under end-to-end encryption, and how the advertised targeted access to messages in end-to-end encrypted workspaces for audit purposes operates without the members' keys. 1 3 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
Genuine end-to-end encryption is on by default for audio, video and data regardless of participant count, with per-connection Diffie-Hellman key handling documented, ANSSI certification, source-code audits for customers, and an augmented-security mode where the customer holds the key — that is the strongest cryptography story I have scored. Waiting rooms and multi-factor authentication gate admission, and the secret code entered by every participant adds mutual verification. I found no public statement spelling out in one place what the vendor itself can and cannot see. 1 4 5
The Educator
End-to-end encryption is on by default for audio, video and data regardless of participant count, with the mechanism actually named — per-connection keys via Diffie-Hellman, optional customer-held keys through Augmented Security, a secret code entered by each participant — and third-party certification plus customer source-code audits behind it. The one sentence I would still want, a plain statement of what the vendor can and cannot see, I did not find. 1 4 5
The Accessibility Advocate
True end-to-end encryption of audio, video and data is on by default regardless of participant count, with Diffie-Hellman per-connection keys, user control of the key through Augmented Security, a secret-code tunnel that verifies who is in the exchange, plus waiting room and MFA; the cryptography is CSPN certified by ANSSI and some customers may audit the source. The captured pages stop short of a plain statement of what the vendor itself can and cannot see. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
This is the sentence I look for and it exists: audio, video and data are end-to-end encrypted by default regardless of participant count, with the mechanism actually documented — per-connection Diffie-Hellman keys, a key-derivation secret-code tunnel that participants enter to verify the exchange, and customer-held keys under Augmented Security — plus waiting rooms, MFA, ANSSI CSPN certification and source-code audits for some customers. The one gap is a plain statement of what the vendor itself can and cannot see on its own infrastructure. 1 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 over WebRTC with no account and no install, apps on all five platforms, gateway phone calls in and out, and accessibility pages that specifically optimise bandwidth and CPU for users running screen readers and magnifiers cover most of our audience. We found no public information on dial-in numbers by region, live captions during meetings — the transcripts and translations evidenced are of recordings — or a published accessibility conformance report. 6 7 8
The Security Officer
Anyone can get in: browser joining over WebRTC with no account and no installation, guest links, clients for Windows, macOS, Linux, Android and iOS, and documented bandwidth and CPU optimisation for people running screen magnifiers or speech synthesis software. Telephone reach is partially covered by gateway calls to and from phone numbers. We found no public information on dial-in number lists, live captions during a meeting, or a published accessibility conformance report — the AI transcripts we see apply to recordings, not live captioning. 2 6 7 8
The Works Council Advocate
Browser joining over WebRTC with no account and no installation, apps across Windows, macOS, Linux, Android and iOS, and deliberate bandwidth and CPU optimisation for colleagues running screen magnifiers or speech synthesis make the door genuinely open, with stated resilience on unstable connections. We found no public information on live captions, a keyboard and screen-reader conformance report, or dial-in numbers listed by region; telephone connectivity appears only as gateway calls to numbers and rooms. 2 6 7
The Educator
Joining from a browser with WebRTC, no account and no installation is stated plainly, there are apps for every platform, resilience on unstable connections is claimed, and — unusually thoughtful — they optimise bandwidth and CPU for people running screen magnifiers and speech synthesis. But live captions are absent from the captured pages, which mention only post-meeting transcripts and translations, and I found no listed dial-in numbers and no accessibility conformance report, so the learners who most need those are left waiting. 6 7 8
The Accessibility Advocate
Browser joining over WebRTC with no account or installation, apps for every major platform, documented behaviour on unstable connections, and — rare and welcome — explicit optimisation of bandwidth and CPU for people running speech synthesis or screen magnifiers. But I found no public information on live captions, telephone dial-in numbers, keyboard testing, or a published accessibility conformance report, and an accessibility page with no report reads as marketing to me; a deaf colleague cannot run this meeting on the evidence shown. 6 7
The Skeptic
Browser joining via WebRTC with no account and no install, apps on all five platforms, dedicated accessibility pages, and bandwidth and CPU optimisation for users running speech synthesis or screen magnifiers lift this above the baseline, with documented behaviour on unstable connections. I found no public information on telephone dial-in numbers, live captions, or a keyboard and screen-reader conformance report; translation exists only as post-meeting AI transcripts. 6 7 8
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 is a named optional add-on with a visual notification to participants, stored in the cloud and compatible with the end-to-end encryption. We found no public information on who may record, the storage region, any retention or deletion policy, or organisation-wide switches for the AI transcripts and summaries — for a works council conversation that is a gap I cannot paper over. 9 8 1
The Security Officer
Recording triggers a visual notification to participants, is compatible with end-to-end encryption and is stored in the vendor's cloud; an administrator can re-grant access to workspace data when members leave, and files exchanged in the in-meeting chat self-delete at session end. Beyond that the picture is thin: recording ships as an optional add-on depending on the offer, and we found no public information on retention or deletion rules, access logging, or how to switch off the AI transcripts, summaries and translations for co-determination purposes. 1 3 8 9
The Works Council Advocate
A recording is personal data about everyone in the room, and the record here is thin: a visual notification tells participants that recording is in progress, recordings and the AI transcripts and summaries are end-to-end encrypted, and storage is described only as the cloud, with the subscription manager appointing meeting organisers as the only hint of organisational control. We found no public information on retention rules or deletion policy, on an organisation-wide rule for who may record, on any access log for stored recordings, or on a separate retention rule for transcripts. On the point a works council checks first, the captured pages are silent on whether attention or attendance analytics exist at all, so nothing documents a switch for them. 1 5 8 9
The Educator
Recording exists as an optional add-on with a visual notification to participants, cloud storage, and AI transcripts and translations, and the recording is described as end-to-end-encryption compatible. But I found no public information on who may record, the storage region, retention or deletion, or organisation-wide policy control — and a recording of my class is personal data about every student in the room. 1 8 9
The Accessibility Advocate
Recording is an optional add-on with a visual participant notification, cloud storage, end-to-end encryption compatibility, and an AI assistant producing transcripts, summaries and translations; targeted audit access to workspace messages also exists. I found no public information on retention rules, deletion controls, the storage region of recordings, or an organisation-wide policy over who may record. 1 8 9
The Skeptic
Recording exists as an optional add-on on the premium cloud, private-cloud and server offers with a visual notification to participants, end-to-end-encrypted recordings and AI transcripts, and targeted administrator audit access to workspace messages. Beyond that the trail goes cold: I found no public information on retention rules, a consent prompt, the storage region for recordings, manual deletion, or an organisation-wide policy over who may record. 1 3 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
The Outlook add-in installs itself with the client, the SIP/H.323 gateway connects Poly, Cisco, LifeSize, Huawei and Avaya room systems, and TixeoServer on-premise with air-gap support is a genuine deployment choice rather than a promise. We found no public information on single sign-on (SAML or OIDC), nor on a documented API, SDK or user provisioning, so identity and automation remain unanswered. 11 6 1 10
The Security Officer
Deployment is genuinely the customer's choice — TixeoCloud, TixeoPrivateCloud, or TixeoServer on your own servers including air-gapped networks, which is the option that changes who holds the keys. Room systems from Poly, Cisco, LifeSize, Huawei and Avaya connect over SIP or H.323 through the gateway. The rest is thin: only an Outlook add-in is evidenced for calendars, and we found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, a documented API, SDKs or webhooks. 1 3 6 11
The Works Council Advocate
Deployment is genuinely the customer's choice — cloud, private cloud, and an on-premises offering suited to air-gapped networks — and SIP and H.323 compatibility reaches Poly, Cisco, LifeSize, Huawei and Avaya rooms, with an Outlook add-in that installs itself with the client. But the identity and extension layer is bare on the captured pages: we found no public information on single sign-on via SAML or OIDC, a documented API, SCIM provisioning, SDKs or webhooks, and only Microsoft's calendar suite is covered. 1 6 10 11
The Educator
There is an Outlook add-in installed automatically with the client, SIP and H.323 room-system support, external directories, and a genuine deployment choice of cloud, private cloud or on-premises suited even to air-gapped networks — that infrastructure freedom is rare. I found no public information on single sign-on, a developer API, SCIM provisioning or webhooks, so the identity and automation story is thin even though the infrastructure story is strong. 1 6 10 11
The Accessibility Advocate
An Outlook add-in automatically installed with the client, external directories, SIP/H.323 room-system compatibility, and a real deployment choice of cloud, private cloud and air-gapped on-premises servers. I found no public information on a documented API, SAML or OIDC single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, SDK embedding or webhooks. 1 6 11
The Skeptic
Deployment is genuinely the customer's choice — an on-premise server version that supports air-gapped networks, a private cloud, and open SIP/H.323 protocols into Poly, Cisco, LifeSize, Huawei and Avaya room systems — but the calendar story is an Outlook add-in only. I found no public information on an API, single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, webhooks or an embeddable SDK. 1 6 7 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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
As stated on the vendor's own pages: an independent French company, development and hosting in Europe, SecNumCloud qualification, in-house technology with claimed control of the entire stack, and an on-premise option that removes the routing question altogether. We found no public information on a subprocessor list or on where the AI assistant processes transcripts, and the independently sourced sovereignty checks returned unconfirmed values, so I cannot take this to the top on claims alone. 5 3 1 4 8
The Security Officer
The vendor's own pages claim European servers, SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, development in France by an independent company, and an on-premises deployment that removes the hosting question entirely. Against that, the independently sourced sovereignty attributes record the contracting entity, data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown, and we found no public subprocessor list in the captured pages. For a vendor whose whole pitch is sovereignty, an unconfirmed chain is the one thing I cannot wave through. 1 3 5 7
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor tells a strong European story in its own voice: an independent French company, technology developed in France, hosting on European servers qualified SecNumCloud, CSPN certification by ANSSI, and an on-premises, air-gappable option that removes the question entirely. But the independently collected sovereignty record could not confirm the contracting entity, the residency or the subprocessors, and we found no published subprocessor list on the captured pages, so the chain between the claim and the contract is undocumented. 1 3 4 5
The Educator
The captured pages state an independent French company, hosting on European servers, a SecNumCloud-qualified hosting option and ANSSI certification, and an on-premises deployment that removes the hosting question entirely. I found no public information on subprocessors, and the independently sourced attributes mark residency and the contracting entity as unconfirmed, so I cannot verify the chain end to end even though what is published points the right way. 1 3 4 5 7
The Accessibility Advocate
The vendor's pages present an independent French company developing in France, hosting on European servers, SecNumCloud qualification and ANSSI CSPN certification, which is a strong story. The independently collected attributes, however, record jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure as unconfirmed, and I found no published subprocessor list. 1 3 5
The Skeptic
The captured pages claim an independent French company, hosting on European servers, SecNumCloud qualification and ANSSI CSPN certification — a strong posture on paper. The independently sourced attributes, however, return unknown for contracting entity jurisdiction, data residency and ownership, and I found no public information on a subprocessor list in any capture, so the European claim rests on the vendor's own words alone. 1 3 5
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 offers are named, a 30-day trial and a demo request are shown, and recording and Live Streaming are flagged as optional add-ons, but we found no public information on per-host figures, capacity limits, billing terms or VAT treatment. Every invoice here is a sales conversation. 9 10 1 11
The Security Officer
No public prices appear in the captured pages: three offerings are named, recording and live streaming are described as "available as an option" without figures, and the route to a number is a 30-day trial, a demo request and a contact form. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from these pages. 1 9 11
The Works Council Advocate
There is not a single figure to work with: the captured pages show a free trial, a 30-day trial and a demo request, and we found no public prices for the three offerings or for the recording and live-streaming add-ons. A buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from the public pages, so every tier is a sales conversation. 1 9 11
The Educator
I found no public prices at all — offers are named and a 30-day trial and a demo request are offered, but every tier is a sales conversation. A school buying thirty host seats cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from the public pages. 1 9 10
The Accessibility Advocate
Public pages show a 30-day trial, a demo request and named offers across cloud, private cloud and on-premises, with recording named as an optional add-on — but no price figures at all. Every tier is a sales conversation, and a buyer cannot compute any part of the invoice from these pages. 1 9 10 11
The Skeptic
No price appears on any captured page — the only public entry points are a 30-day trial and a demo request — and the three offerings sit entirely behind a sales conversation. I found no public pricing for the recording and live-streaming add-on, and no capacity, dial-in or storage figures that would let a buyer compute an invoice. 9 10 11
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Tixeo
Is Tixeo European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Tixeo is based.
Where does Tixeo store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Tixeo have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Tixeo?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates alfaview (3/5), Nextcloud Talk (3/5) and eyeson (2.5/5) 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: Tixeo 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.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 20 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 compliance 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.tixeo.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →