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 IT Administrator
Capacity is published per plan — 100, 100 and 300 participants, webinars at 500, and an add-on path to 5,000 — and breakout rooms are documented down to roles, preassignment and help requests, which is what I want to see rather than promises. Waiting rooms and a mandatory minimum security option are enforced even at the API level, and live streaming is stated. What I found no public information on is adaptive quality under load, hardware room-system support, or diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call. 2 6 7 10 3