whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Video Conferencing

Wire

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Wire Swiss GmbH · wire.com

Compare with Google Meet → 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

Video conferences are stated up to 150 participants with instant meetings and file sharing, and guest links can carry passwords, but I found no public information on breakout rooms, host moderation such as mute-all, screen sharing as distinct from file sharing, or what happens to the call on a constrained connection. Workable at team scale, undemonstrated under load. 1 2

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

The strongest area by far: messages, calls, video and files are end-to-end encrypted by default under Messaging Layer Security with TreeKEM, forward secrecy and post-compromise security; the code is fully open source on GitHub and independently audited; participants verify each other through device fingerprints and ID Shield ties identities to the customer's own identity provider; and the vendor states plainly it has no access to encryption keys and uses no backdoors. Guests join through password-protected links that administrators can restrict. 3 4 6 7 9

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

The only reach item evidenced is guest access by password-protected link; I found no public information on browser joining without an install, telephone dial-in, live captions, keyboard operation, screen-reader testing, or a published accessibility conformance report. On this evidence a deaf colleague cannot follow a Wire meeting and a screen-reader user cannot run one — silence is a marketing page, not a conformance report. 1 2

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 recordings at all — who may record, whether participants are told, where recordings are stored, how long they live — and nothing about recordings or transcripts appears in the admin console's policy list. General retention hygiene exists, with logs kept at most 90 days, encrypted messages deleted after delivery, and analytics self-hosted in the EU, but none of it speaks to the recording question a works council will ask. 2 4

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

SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, an open-source SDK in JavaScript, TypeScript and on the JVM, webhooks through the GitHub sample app, first-party apps and a marketplace announced for late 2025 add up to a real platform, and a genuine on-premises deployment is supported with Messaging Layer Security applying across both cloud and on-premises. I found no public information on calendar integration for the major suites or room-system support, which meeting buyers reach for first. 1 2 8 9

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

Servers sit in Germany and Ireland, the subprocessor list is published with AWS named for EU hosting and Stripe as the single USA-located entry, and transfer safeguards are documented; the security pages state server locations without naming the hosting provider, while the privacy policy's subprocessor list names AWS. The contracting entity is Wire Swiss GmbH in Zug rather than an EU entity, with Wire Germany GmbH appointed only as the GDPR Article 27 representative — close, but the anchor weight of that gap keeps this below the top band. 3 4 5 6

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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

Per-person prices are public with the billing period stated — €7.45 per person/month on annual payment or €8.94 per person/month monthly for teams up to 100 people, with video capacity published at 150 participants — but Enterprise above 100 people is custom-priced only. I found no public information on dial-in rates, recording storage, VAT treatment or minimum term, so a small buyer can compute their invoice while a larger one cannot. 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

2 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.

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 4 Report an error

Where this could be wrong

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.

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

Sources (9)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage wire.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing wire.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security page wire.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy wire.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Imprint wire.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap wire.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Encryption & meeting access — found from sitemap wire.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap wire.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Integrations & deployment — found from sitemap wire.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →