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 Works Council Advocate
Capacity is published per plan — 100 participants on Basic and Pro, 300 on Business, a paid add-on up to 5,000, webinars at 500 — and breakout rooms carry five roles with timers, preassignment and help requests, which is real host control. Waiting rooms, passcodes and authenticated-only joining are enforced even when meetings are created through the API. We found no public information on adaptive quality or behaviour on constrained and mobile networks, or on diagnostics an administrator could read after a bad call. 2 6 7 9 10