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 Security Officer
Capacity is published per plan — 100 participants on Basic and Pro, 300 on Business, a large-meeting add-on reaching 5,000 and a 500-attendee webinar — and breakout rooms are documented down to roles, timers and per-room user limits, with meetings required to carry a passcode, waiting room or authenticated-only join. What the pages do not show is behaviour under strain: no adaptive bitrate or simulcast claim, no documented mobile-network reliability, and no diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call. Quality appears only as hardware gates — 1080p send demands an eight-core machine, GPU and "quality network connections". 2 6 7 10