Jitsi Meet

Jitsi Meet is an open-source video conferencing app for browser meetings, mobile use and self-hosted deployments. It suits teams that want to shape where meetings run or embed calls in their own products. The public service is useful for ordinary meetings and API testing, but its endpoint cap and open moderator model make it a poor production default for every organization.

Overview

Jitsi pairs video meetings with screen and presentation sharing, chat, emoji reactions and Etherpad collaboration. Recording and breakout rooms extend it beyond basic calls, while self-hosting gives organizations a way to run the service themselves. That flexibility is valuable when deployment control matters, but it also means the hosted and self-managed options have materially different operating constraints.

On meet.jit.si, chat and speaker statistics are retained only for the meeting and destroyed when it ends. The trade-off is that every user is a moderator on that service. Self-hosted deployments can configure strong authentication to restrict moderator roles, making them a better fit for organizations that need tighter control over meeting authority.

Key features

• Meeting collaboration: Users can share desktops and presentations, message one another, use emojis in chat and work together on Etherpad documents. HD audio uses Opus. These tools cover common collaborative meetings without requiring separate document collaboration for Etherpad users.
• Recording and breakout rooms: Both are supported, alongside screen sharing. That combination suits teams running structured sessions, though the public service's endpoint limit still governs its practical reach.
• Embedding and integrations: The External API supports embedding meetings in web pages, and Jitsi's FAQ describes SDK embedding in Android and iOS apps. Integrations include Etherpad, YouTube Live, Dropbox, callstats.io and SIP telephony. Jitsi as a Service (JaaS) offers an iFrame API, webhooks, recordings, analytics and transcriptions.
• Encryption: Audio and video are encrypted in transit with DTLS-SRTP. Optional end-to-end encryption covers audio, video and screen sharing, but not chat or polls, so it does not extend the same protection to every meeting interaction.
• Deployment and support: Jitsi can be self-hosted, with stable and nightly packages for Ubuntu and Debian. The Jitsi team and 8x8 do not provide commercial support; paid help is available through community providers. Organizations that need vendor-backed commercial support should look elsewhere.

Pricing

Jitsi Meet is free: free. The plan provides free video conferences on meet.jit.si, capped at 25 monthly active endpoints in aggregate across a user's accounts. That makes it suitable for modest usage, but the shared account-level endpoint limit is a real constraint for broader or recurring use.

JaaS includes free unlimited minutes for up to 25 endpoints, as well as its API, webhooks, recordings, analytics and transcriptions. The service terms beyond that free allowance are custom pricing. For production API integrations, Jitsi says meet.jit.si is intended for testing, not production applications; teams should not treat the public service as a production API host.

Platforms

Jitsi Meet supports web, Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and API use, as well as self-hosted deployment. Mobile apps are available through the App Store, Google Play and F-Droid. The range is useful for organizations spanning desktop, mobile and custom integrations, while self-hosting is specifically packaged for Ubuntu and Debian.

Who it's for

Jitsi is a strong fit for teams that value open-source conferencing, want to self-host, or need to embed meetings in a web page or mobile app. It is also a reasonable free option for meetings that fit within the public service's 25 monthly active endpoint allowance. It is less suitable for production API deployments on meet.jit.si, for organizations needing commercial support, or for meetings where moderator privileges must be restricted on the hosted service.

Pros and cons

• Pro: Self-hosting and API embedding give teams meaningful control over where and how meetings are delivered.
• Pro: Recording, breakout rooms, screen sharing, chat and Etherpad collaboration cover a broad range of meeting workflows.
• Pro: Optional end-to-end encryption extends to audio, video and screen sharing.
• Con: meet.jit.si is limited to 25 monthly active endpoints across a user's accounts, restricting its suitability for sustained or larger-scale use.
• Con: All participants are moderators on meet.jit.si, which does not suit meetings requiring a tightly controlled moderator role.
• Con: Commercial support is not provided by Jitsi or 8x8, so paid assistance means turning to community providers.
• Con: End-to-end encryption does not cover chat or polls.

Alternatives

Microsoft Teams is worth considering if a defined free meeting cap and included cloud storage suit better: its free plan allows 100 participants, 60-minute group meetings and 5 GB of storage.

VSee is another freemium alternative with a free plan for one provider and a free trial.

TeamLink offers a free plan capped at 20 participants, 45 minutes and one meeting room, making it an option for shorter, smaller meetings.

TrueConf offers a perpetual free server license with capacity for 1,000 messaging users and conferences, which may suit teams comparing self-hosted options.

Webex App has a free plan for unlimited meetings of up to 100 attendees, capped at 40 minutes per meeting.

Zoho Meeting has a free tier for 100 participants and 60 minutes per meeting; its Standard plan is priced at $1 a year.

8x8 Meet is a free alternative with a stated capacity of 500 participants.

Galene is a free, open-source, self-hosted videoconference server.

Browse more options in Video Conferencing Software or Secure Video Conferencing Software.

Verdict

Choose Jitsi Meet if you want open-source meetings with the option to self-host or embed conferencing into a product, and can manage deployment and support accordingly. Its broad meeting toolkit and deployment flexibility are the main draw; the public service's endpoint cap, unrestricted moderator roles and non-production API status are the main reasons to choose another route.