Video Conferencing
VidyoConnect
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Enghouse Systems Limited (Vidyo) · www.vidyo.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.
VidyoConnect at a glance
- Vendor
- Enghouse Systems Limited (Vidyo)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates VidyoConnect 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. VidyoConnect, Enghouse Systems' video conferencing platform, scores strongest on integrations at 6-7 and reach and accessibility at 4-5, weakest on sovereignty at 0-2, with encryption and access and pricing transparency both at 2-3. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
VidyoConnect, Enghouse Systems' video conferencing platform, scores strongest on integrations at 6-7 and reach and accessibility at 4-5, weakest on sovereignty at 0-2, with encryption and access and pricing transparency both at 2-3. Meeting core holds at 4-5: HD multiparty meetings with H.264 SVC adaptive layering documented over Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G; joining from four browsers and iOS and Android; dial-in gives each customer a dedicated local or toll-free number, through partners in 39 countries. Integrations span Outlook scheduling, Active Directory single sign-on, H.323 and SIP interoperability, an SDK and cloud or on-premise deployment, though the Microsoft evidence is Lync 2010/2013 era. Encryption statements are generic; the vendor is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey under a parent traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and we found no public information on EU data residency, a data processing agreement or subprocessors. Recording governance lands flat at 4 — per-group admin control, no consent or retention rules documented. Public pricing is fragmentary, chiefly $9,500 introductory for the recording and webcasting solution. Scores sit close; sovereignty's 0-2 spread reflects weighting, not conflicting facts.
Speaks for it
- H.264 SVC adaptive layering is documented to hold up over Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G, with resiliency on unmanaged networks.
- Voice-only users join from any landline or mobile on a dedicated local or toll-free number per customer, offered through partners in 39 countries.
- Administrators set per-user-group permissions for who may record, webcast and access stored content, on an appliance storing more than 2000 hours of HD video with NAS supported.
- Recordings are protected by hashed links, access levels and PIN protection, and stored in standard FLV format with no proprietary player required.
- Integrations cover an Outlook plug-in, Active Directory single sign-on, H.323 and SIP interoperability, an embeddable SDK, and cloud, hybrid or on-premise deployment.
Held against it
- Encryption appears only as a 'secured and encrypted connection' for webcasting and recording and 'data encryption' among the ISO 27001 controls, with no method or key handling named for live meeting media.
- The captured pages give no public information on a participant limit per plan, waiting rooms, breakout rooms or host moderation such as mute or remove.
- The vendor is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey under a parent traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and we found no public information on EU data residency, a data processing agreement or any subprocessor.
- Public pricing is fragmentary — $9,500 introductory for the recording and webcasting solution and $25 per additional 1000 minutes of dial-in — with the VidyoVoice service sold as 'a low, fixed annual fee' whose amount is not stated.
- We found no public information on notifying or asking participants' consent when a recording starts, or on retention, deletion and access logging.
Best for
- You need voice-only participants to join from any landline or mobile without a computer or broadband connection.
- Your meetings must hold up on poor or unmanaged networks — the captured pages document adaptive video layering over Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G.
- You run an estate with H.323 and SIP room systems, Active Directory single sign-on and Outlook scheduling, and value a stated on-premise deployment option.
- You want recordings held on your own appliance with per-user-group admin permissions rather than an unnamed cloud.
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires EU data residency or a European contracting entity — the vendor shown here is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey under a parent traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
- You must compute an annual invoice from published prices — the published figures are $9,500 introductory for the recording and webcasting solution and $25 per additional 1000 minutes of dial-in, with no per-host price for the conferencing service.
- You need documented meeting admission controls such as passcodes, lobbies or locking — the pages show click-to-connect links for meetings, and the PIN and hashed-link protection applies to recordings.
- Your calendar estate runs on current Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace — the Microsoft integration documented is a Lync 2010 and 2013-era plug-in, and we found no public information on Google Workspace support.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| The meeting itself | 2 of 5 |
| Encryption & meeting access | 1.5 of 5 |
| Reach & accessibility | 2.5 of 5 |
| Recordings, retention & admin control | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & deployment | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 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 — Not a meeting tool: no multi-party video calls, only one-to-one calls or recorded video.
3 — Video meetings with screen sharing, chat and host controls such as mute-all.
5 — Meetings with a stated participant limit per plan, screen sharing, breakout rooms or a waiting room, and host moderation (mute, remove, assign co-hosts).
8 — Large meetings and webinars with published capacity limits, per-participant moderation and waiting rooms, layout control, simulcast or adaptive bitrate stated, and behaviour on constrained or mobile networks documented.
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
HD multipoint across room systems, desktops and mobile is documented, and the adaptive video layering architecture with error resiliency over Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G, plus bandwidth management on unmanaged networks, is exactly the behaviour-on-a-bad-connection story I want. But I found no published participant capacity for meetings, and no host moderation, breakout rooms, waiting rooms or after-call diagnostics on the captured pages, so I cannot size it for a board meeting. 1 2 3 7
The Security Officer
Content sharing, an in-call whiteboard with host-granted control, and multiparty HD across desktops, mobiles and room systems are documented, and the adaptive-layering architecture with stated behaviour on Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G networks is more engineering detail than most vendors publish. What I could not find is a stated participant limit for live meetings, any waiting room or breakout rooms, or host moderation such as muting or removing participants — the only capacity figure (300) covers concurrent views of recorded content, not people in a call. 2 3 6 7
The Works Council Advocate
Multi-party HD conferencing is documented with content sharing at up to 1080p, an in-call whiteboard where participants request and the granter passes control, layouts such as Active Speaker and Continuous Presence, and adaptive SVC video stated to hold up over Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G networks. However, the pages state no participant capacity for meetings themselves (the 300 figure covers concurrent content views of recordings), and I found no public information on breakout rooms, a waiting room, or host moderation such as mute, remove or co-hosts. 2 3 7
The Educator
Genuine multiparty HD meetings are documented — phones, desktops and room systems, 1080p content sharing, Active Speaker and Continuous Presence layouts — and the adaptive layering over Internet, LTE, 3G and 4G is the strongest poor-connection story I could ask for my dead-spot students. What I found no public information on is everything a teacher moderates with: breakout rooms, waiting rooms, mute-all or per-participant controls, and any participant capacity per plan. That mix of well-documented engineering and silent moderation places it just under the middle. 2 3 7
The Accessibility Advocate
Multi-party HD meetings, content sharing, an in-call whiteboard and Active Speaker and Continuous Presence layouts are documented, and adaptive layering over LTE, 3G and 4G with resiliency on unmanaged networks is genuinely strong. But the captured pages give no participant limit per plan, no waiting room or breakout rooms and no host moderation controls, so this sits between levels. 2 3 7 1
The Skeptic
Screen sharing, an in-call whiteboard where access is granted by the host, Active Speaker and Continuous Presence layouts at up to 1440p30, and H.264 SVC adaptive layering documented to hold up over LTE, 3G and unmanaged networks are all on the record. What I never found is a participant limit per plan, a waiting room, breakout rooms, or documented mute and remove moderation; the one capacity figure covers 300 concurrent recording views, not meeting seats. Strong engineering story, but the numbers a buyer sizes a contract against are missing. 1 2 3 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 — The vendor states that meeting media is transmitted unencrypted.
3 — Encryption in transit stated, with meetings protected by a link or passcode.
5 — Encryption in transit and at rest stated with the method named (for example TLS and AES), a lobby or waiting room with host-controlled admission, and meeting passcodes or locking.
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
Encryption is asserted in words only — a secured and encrypted connection for webcasts and recordings, and data encryption among the ISO 27001 controls — with no method named, no end-to-end option, no key handling and no lobby with host-controlled admission documented. Recorded content at least gets hashed links and PIN protection; meeting access beyond click-to-connect links is not described. 4 6 7
The Security Officer
The only encryption statements are a "secured and encrypted connection" for one-click webcasting and "data encryption" listed among ISO 27001 controls — no method named, no key handling, and no statement of what the vendor itself can see. I found no public information on meeting passcodes, lobbies or locking; the PIN and hashed-link protection applies to recordings, not to who can walk into a live meeting. 4 6
The Works Council Advocate
The only encryption statements on the captured pages are a passing "secured and encrypted connection" around webcasting and recording, and "data encryption" listed among ISO 27001 controls — no method is named, and nothing covers live meeting media, key handling, or an end-to-end option. I found no public information on a lobby, meeting passcodes, meeting locking, or how admission to a meeting is controlled. 4 6
The Educator
The only mechanism named is "a secured and encrypted connection" around recording and webcasting, plus "data encryption" among the ISO 27001 controls — no method for meeting media is stated. Access protection shown is for stored content, through hashed links, PINs and per-group access levels; I found no public information on a lobby, meeting passcodes, end-to-end encryption or key handling. That is encryption in transit stated, with link-level protection and nothing more documented. 4 6
The Accessibility Advocate
Encryption appears only as generic statements — a listed ISO 27001 control and a "secured and encrypted connection" for webcasts — with no method named and no meeting lobby, passcode or key handling documented. Recordings can be PIN-protected, but for live meetings we found no public information on access control beyond click-to-connect links. 4 6 7
The Skeptic
The only encryption statements are generic: webcasting and recording run "via a secured and encrypted connection" and "data encryption" appears in a list of ISO 27001 controls — no method named, no key handling, no end-to-end claim for any meeting type on any plan. Meeting access amounts to click-to-connect links; I found no public information on a lobby, meeting passcodes, locking, or SSO-gated joining. That is the level of "encrypted, somehow, join by link." 4 6 7
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 — Joining requires an installed client and an account; guests cannot take part.
3 — Guests join by link, through an app or the browser.
5 — Browser joining without an install, guest access by link without an account, mobile apps for iOS and Android, and either telephone dial-in or live captions.
8 — Telephone dial-in with numbers listed per country, live captions, a keyboard-navigable and screen-reader-tested interface or a stated accessibility standard (WCAG, BITV), 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
Dial-in is real: land-line and mobile users join without a computer or broadband through dedicated local or toll-free numbers, offered via partners in 39 countries, and iOS and Android endpoints are documented. Click-to-connect works from browsers, but the pages describe an Internet Explorer-era desktop world with MSI-pushed components, and I found no public information on live captions in meetings, a stated accessibility standard, or guest access without an account. 3 5 7
The Security Officer
Voice-only users can dial in from any landline or mobile on a dedicated local or toll-free number, the service is offered through partners in 39 countries, browsers join via click-to-connect links, and iOS and Android endpoints are named. I found no public information on guests joining without an account, dial-in numbers listed per country, live captions in meetings (the documented AI captions apply to recordings), or any stated accessibility standard. 1 3 5 7
The Works Council Advocate
Browser joining across major browsers, iOS and Android apps, and genuine telephone dial-in are documented: a voice-only employee can join from a landline or mobile without a computer or broadband, through a dedicated local or toll-free number, with the service offered in 39 countries. Captions appear only as AI additions to recordings, and I found no public information on live captions in meetings, guest joining without an account, or any accessibility standard, keyboard navigation or screen-reader support. 1 3 5 7
The Educator
This is the good news for my classroom: click-to-connect joining in four browsers, iOS and Android apps, and a real dial-in where voice-only users on any landline or mobile join with no computer or broadband at all, offered through partners in 39 countries, with resilience on unmanaged low-bandwidth networks explicitly documented. But I found no public information on guest joining without an account, and the AI captions are documented for recordings rather than live meetings. I also found no public information on keyboard navigation, screen readers or a stated accessibility standard. 1 3 5 7
The Accessibility Advocate
Telephone dial-in with no computer or broadband needed is documented — a dedicated local or toll-free number, offered through partners in 39 countries — alongside iOS and Android apps, browser joining and adaptive behaviour on 3G and 4G. The parts my verdict turns on are undocumented: we found no public information on live captioning in meetings (the AI captions documented apply to recordings), on keyboard operation, on screen-reader testing, or on any accessibility conformance report. 5 3 7 1
The Skeptic
Browser joining via click-to-connect links across four browsers, iOS and Android endpoints, and a genuine dial-in path — a dedicated local or toll-free number per customer, sold through partners in 39 countries, with overage billed at $25 per additional 1000 minutes — are documented. But no country-by-country number list, no guest access without an account, no accessibility standard or keyboard and screen-reader testing, and the AI captions attach to recordings rather than live meetings. Dial-in is real; the rest of "everyone can join" is unproven. 1 3 5 7
Recordings, retention & admin control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
A recording is personal data about everyone in the room. Who may record, who is told, where it is stored, how long it lives, and what the works council can switch off under BetrVG §87(1) no. 6.
0 — The vendor states that any participant can record without notice to the others, with no admin control.
3 — Recording limited to the host or set by the organiser, with participants notified that the meeting is recorded.
5 — An admin setting for who may record, participants notified or asked for consent when recording starts, recordings stored in a stated location (cloud region or local), and deletion of recordings by host or admin.
8 — Automatic retention and deletion per policy, recordings encrypted at rest with access logged, transcription and AI summaries handled with their own switch and 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 participant-level behavioural scoring stated as not part of the product.
The IT Administrator
Administrators can set per-user-group permissions for who records, webcasts and accesses stored content, and recordings land on a stated appliance with NAS integration in standard FLV — more control than most. But the pages say nothing about notifying or asking participants when recording starts, nothing about deletion or retention policy, and the AI captions and summaries carry no documented switch or retention rule of their own. 1 6
The Security Officer
Administrators can set per-user-group permissions for who records, webcasts and accesses stored content, recordings live on a customer appliance with NAS support in a standard file format, and links are PIN-protectable — that is real control over the asset. But I found no public information on participants being notified or asked for consent when recording starts, retention or deletion rules, access logging, or a separate switch and retention rule for the AI captions and summaries attached to recordings. 1 6
The Works Council Advocate
Administrators can set permissions per user group for who may record, webcast and access stored content, and recordings land on a customer appliance with NAS storage, standard FLV format and PIN-protected hashed links — a genuinely controllable setup. But I found no public information on notifying or asking participants when a recording starts, retention or deletion rules, access logging, or any independent switch for the AI captions, summaries and searchable-video features; for a works agreement under co-determination those switches are the whole question. 1 6
The Educator
Administrators get real control — per-group permissions over who may record, webcast or access stored content, with recordings held on a customer appliance or NAS rather than an unnamed cloud, protected by hashed links and PINs. I found no public information on notifying or asking participants when recording starts, on retention or deletion policies, or on an audit trail of access. The AI captions and summaries are documented as features, but I found no public information on a separate switch or retention rule for them. 1 6
The Accessibility Advocate
Administrators can set per user group who records, webcasts and accesses stored content, and storage sits on a stated appliance with NAS support, PIN protection and hashed links. We found no public information on notifying participants or seeking consent when recording starts, nor on deletion, retention or access logging. 6
The Skeptic
There is real admin structure: administrators set per-user-group permissions for who may record, webcast and access stored content, recordings sit on a stated appliance holding more than 2000 hours of HD video with NAS supported, and sharing is gated by hashed links, access levels and PINs. I found no public information on notifying or asking consent of participants when a recording starts, on deletion or retention rules, or on access logging — and AI captions and summaries ride along with no documented switch. Halfway to a works-council-defensible recording policy. 1 6
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 — A closed meeting tool: no calendar integration, no SSO and no API.
3 — A calendar integration or add-in for scheduling meetings, or a few named integrations.
5 — Calendar integration for the major suites (Microsoft 365, Google Workspace), SSO, and a documented API or SDK for creating and managing meetings.
8 — The above plus SCIM provisioning, embedding via SDK, webhooks for meeting events, room-system support, 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
Outlook scheduling, a Lync plug-in, Active Directory single sign-on, MSI rollout, H.323 and SIP interop with legacy room systems, an SDK to embed video, and cloud, hybrid or on-premise deployment — a genuinely deployable stack for an enterprise estate. The gaps: no Google Workspace calendar integration, no SCIM provisioning and no webhooks on the captured pages, and the on-premise option is one sentence rather than a documented deployment. 1 3 7 8
The Security Officer
Outlook scheduling, single sign-on through Active Directory, APIs and SDKs for embedding voice and video, H.323/SIP room-system interop, and a stated on-premise or hybrid deployment make this a broadly integrable platform. The calendar story is dated — a Lync 2010/2013-era plug-in rather than today's Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace — and I found no public information on SCIM provisioning or webhooks for meeting events. 1 3 7
The Works Council Advocate
Outlook scheduling, single sign-on through Active Directory, H.323 and SIP room-system interoperability, an embeddable video SDK, and a documented on-premise as well as cloud and hybrid deployment option give the stack real substance — running on our own infrastructure matters to a works council. The Microsoft integrations documented are Lync 2010 and 2013 era, and I found no public information on Google Workspace integration, SCIM provisioning or webhooks. 1 3 7
The Educator
The stack coverage is wide: an Outlook plug-in for one-click scheduling, single sign-on through Active Directory, APIs and SDKs to embed video in applications, interoperability with H.323, SIP and room systems, and cloud, hybrid or on-premise deployment all stated. I found no public information on Google Workspace calendar integration, SCIM provisioning or webhooks. That sits comfortably above the middle but short of the fuller enterprise deployment picture. 1 3 7
The Accessibility Advocate
Outlook and Lync plug-ins, Active Directory single sign-on, APIs and SDKs for embedding, room-system and H.323/SIP interoperability, and cloud, hybrid or on-premise deployment are all documented. The calendar story covers only Microsoft suites of the Lync era, and we found no public information on SCIM provisioning or webhooks. 7 1 3
The Skeptic
An Outlook plug-in for single-click scheduling, single sign-on through Active Directory, H.323 and SIP room-system interoperability, an SDK with APIs to embed voice and video, LMS integration, and a stated cloud-or-on-premise deployment cover most of the ground. The Microsoft evidence on the pages dates to Lync 2010 and 2013 and Windows XP through 8, I found no public information on Google Workspace support, SCIM provisioning or webhooks. Broad, but the depth is dated. 1 7
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. Dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-EU.
0 — Proven non-EU on every dimension the evidence covers: non-EU vendor and contracting entity and media routed outside the EU, with no EU option stated.
3 — One European element proven — EU data residency for storage, an EU contracting entity or EU representative, or a published DPA — with the rest of the chain unstated.
5 — EU hosting stated for meetings as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a DPA offered; the subprocessor chain (relays, analytics, support tooling, transcription) is unstated or partly non-EU.
8 — Media and metadata processed in the EU on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, 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 proven footprint is non-European: headquarters in Hackensack, New Jersey, and a parent, Enghouse Systems Limited, listed in Toronto — and beyond that I found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, on a data processing agreement, or on a single subprocessor. Every dimension that would point to Europe is unstated, and for a buyer who weighs this heavily that decides it. 3 4 6
The Security Officer
The captured pages place the vendor in Hackensack, New Jersey under a parent listed on the Toronto exchange, and I found no public information on EU data residency, an EU contracting entity or representative, a data processing agreement, or the subprocessors carrying the traffic. For a buyer who weighs this heavily: not one page I read commits a single byte, contract or certificate to Europe. 3 4 6
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey and is a subsidiary of Enghouse Systems Limited, traded in Toronto — no European contracting entity, representative or hosting arrangement appears anywhere on the captured pages. I found no public information on where meeting media and metadata are processed, on a data processing agreement, or on the subprocessor chain; a buyer who weighs this heavily finds nothing European evidenced here. 4 6
The Educator
The one link in the chain these pages establish points away from Europe: Vidyo is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey and is a subsidiary of Enghouse Systems Limited, traded on the Toronto exchange. I found no public information on where media and metadata are processed, on a DPA, or on any subprocessor — those are unknown, not answered. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, that is as close to the floor as the evidence takes it. 4 6
The Accessibility Advocate
Every sovereignty dimension is marked unknown, and what the pages do establish points away from Europe: a Hackensack, New Jersey headquarters under a parent listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. We found no public information on EU data residency, an EU contracting entity or a data processing agreement. 6 4
The Skeptic
The jurisdiction facts the pages do give point away from Europe: a Hackensack, New Jersey headquarters dateline for Vidyo and a parent, Enghouse Systems Limited, traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I found no public information on EU data residency, an EU contracting entity or representative, a data processing agreement, or any subprocessor — no European element is evidenced anywhere, and for this buyer that weighs heavily. Scored just above the bottom because the non-EU facts cover only vendor domicile while the rest stays unknown. 4 6
Pricing transparency
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 public "from" price or one priced tier per host or user.
5 — Per-host or per-user prices public for the main tiers with the billing period stated and participant limits per tier given.
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
A buyer gets fragments: an introductory $9,500 for the recording appliance, $25 per additional 1000 minutes of dial-in, a free Lync plug-in for customers with a current maintenance agreement, and a low fixed annual fee whose figure is never stated. Nothing prices the conferencing seats per host, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 5 6 7
The Security Officer
The only figures I could find are a $9,500 introductory price for the recording solution, $25 per additional 1000 minutes of dial-in, a "low, fixed annual fee" stated without a number, and a free plug-in for customers already on maintenance. I found no per-host or per-user price for the conferencing product itself, no tier limits and no VAT or minimum-term treatment, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. 5 6 7
The Works Council Advocate
Scattered public prices exist — an introductory price of $9,500 for the recording and webcasting solution, $25 per additional 1000 minutes for the voice dial-in service, and a free Lync plug-in under a current maintenance agreement. The conferencing product itself carries no per-host price, tier, participant limit or billing terms on these pages, so no buyer could compute an annual invoice from what is published. 5 6 7
The Educator
What is public are fragments from product announcements: an introductory price of $9,500 for the recording and webcasting product, $25 per additional 1000 minutes for the dial-in service, and a free Lync plug-in under a maintenance agreement. I found no public information on per-host or per-user pricing for the conferencing service itself, on tier participant limits, VAT treatment or minimum terms. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from this. 5 6 7
The Accessibility Advocate
The only public figures are an introductory "$9,500" for the recording product and "$25 per additional 1000 minutes" of voice dial-in, with the dial-in service sold as "a low, fixed annual fee" whose amount is not stated. No per-host tiers, per-tier participant limits, VAT treatment or minimum term appear, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. 6 5 7
The Skeptic
The only public figures are an introductory price of $9,500 for the recording and webcasting solution, dial-in overage at $25 per additional 1000 minutes, and a free Lync plug-in for customers with a current maintenance agreement. The VidyoVoice offer is described as "a low, fixed annual fee" with no amount, and I found no per-host price, no tiers, no participant limits per tier, no storage allowance, no minimum term and no VAT treatment. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice for their host count. 5 6 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about VidyoConnect
Is VidyoConnect European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where VidyoConnect is based.
Where does VidyoConnect store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does VidyoConnect have a free plan?
Yes. VidyoConnect has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to VidyoConnect?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Nextcloud Talk (3/5), Tixeo (3/5) and eyeson (3/5) highest among the other 29 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 Nextcloud Talk (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: VidyoConnect alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 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.
- 11 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
- 2 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
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 The meeting itself — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Reach & accessibility — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Recordings, retention & admin control — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap www.vidyo.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →