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.
The Accessibility Advocate
Breakout rooms are documented in real depth — five distinct roles, preassignment, timers, broadcast, help requests — and capacities are published per tier, from 100 and 300 participants up to an add-on reaching 5,000, with webinars at 500. Waiting rooms, passcodes and authenticated-only joining are enforced, with a waiting room switched on automatically when nothing else is set. We found no public information on adaptive bitrate, on what the call does on a constrained connection beyond a stated requirement of quality network connections for 1080p, or on diagnostics an admin could read after a bad call. 2 6 7 9 10