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 Educator

Weighted verdict

Teaches thirty people who join from whatever they have, half of them on a phone in a dead spot. Cares that the browser works without an install, that guests need no account, that breakout rooms are usable, and that nobody is excluded by bandwidth or by a missing caption.

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

Scored by The Educator

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 Educator

Video conferences are published at up to 150 participants on the paid team plan, but I found no public information on breakout rooms, on mute-all or other host moderation, or on how a call behaves when someone's connection drops to one bar — the three things my classroom needs most. Screen sharing in a call is never stated outright; the sharing that is documented is file sharing, and capacity above the team tier sits behind custom pricing. 1 2 6

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 Educator

The strongest encryption record I have judged: end-to-end encryption covers text, voice, video and files by default, the cryptography is MLS with its key management explained, the source is open and independently audited, and the vendor states plainly that it has no access to encryption keys and uses no backdoors. Participants can verify each other's device fingerprints and ID Shield checks identity against your own identity provider. I hold back a point only because a lobby or per-meeting access policy is not documented — guest access rests on password-protected links. 2 4 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 Educator

Guests can join by link with a password, which I value, but that is where the reach story ends: I found no public information on joining from a browser without an install, on telephone dial-in, on live captions, or on an accessibility statement. For the half of my class on a phone in a dead spot, and for the ones who need captions and keyboard operation, I cannot promise them a way in from what is published. 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 Educator

I found no public information on recording at all — who may record, whether participants are told, where a recording is stored, or how long it is kept. The documented retention windows cover logs and usage data rather than recordings, and the admin console's switches govern file sharing and guest links but say nothing about capture, so a works council has nothing here to read or to switch off. 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 Educator

Identity and deployment are well covered: SAML single sign-on, SCIM provisioning, an open-source SDK with sample apps and webhooks, and a genuine on-premises option with the same MLS protection as the cloud. The two staples of a working week I look for are silent — I found no public information on calendar integration or meeting-room system support — and the marketplace itself is announced as coming in late 2025, with the captured pages describing the SDK's supported languages differently. 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 Educator

Media and metadata sit on servers in Germany and Ireland, the subprocessor list is published with locations, analytics are self-hosted in the EU, and the one US entry — Stripe for payments — is named alongside documented transfer safeguards. I weigh the gaps heavily: the contracting entity is Wire Swiss GmbH in Zug, outside the EU, with a Berlin-registered EU representative, and the identity of the hosting provider is not confirmed on the captured pages; an on-premises option exists for those who must remove the question entirely. 1 3 4 5

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 Educator

Per-person prices are public with the billing period stated — "€7.45" per person/month for annual payment, "€8,94 per person/month" for monthly — and limits are given for chat groups and for 150-participant video conferences. But I found no public information on dial-in rates, recording storage, VAT treatment or minimum term, and everything above 100 people moves to custom pricing, so a buyer cannot compute the annual invoice from public pages alone. 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 →