Self-hosted
- Fair 4.7
- Easy 3.3
- Secure 3.3
FES Scores 9
| Pillar | Criterion | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | Day-one UX Can non-technical staff use it without a project? | 5 | Share a link, join in the browser. Source |
| Easy | Operate Admin burden, updates, backups and language coverage. | 3 | A small instance is easy; large webinars are not. Source |
| Easy | Integrate SSO, mail/CalDAV, APIs and common NGO connectors. | 2 | Few CRM/member integrations. Source |
| Fair | Lock-in / exit Can you leave with your data in open formats, at known cost? | 5 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): self-host + open-source path supports exit with your data. Source |
| Fair | Sovereignty EU legal entity, EU hosting, and exposure to extra-EU lawful access? | 4 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): non-EU vendor; self-host still lets you pick EU infra — verify update/support exposure. Source |
| Fair | Openness Open source or open standards? Are independent implementations possible? | 5 | Rule baseline (rubric_v1): license classified as open-source family. Source |
| Secure | IT security Authentication, encryption, patch cadence and independent audit. | 3 | You must keep Jitsi and Coturn patched. Source |
| Secure | User security 2FA, roles, phishing resistance and safe defaults. | 3 | Lobby and passwords exist; anonymous links can leak. Source |
| Secure | Personal data GDPR fit: DPA, residency, sub-processors and Schrems II posture. | 4 | Self-host avoids the public instance’s data story. Source |
Indicative scores from public information — how we score.