Meet

Open-source video conferencing, honestly reviewed. No marketing fluff, just what you get when you self-host it.

TL;DR

• What it is: Open-source (MIT) video conferencing app built on top of LiveKit’s SFU infrastructure — think Zoom, but the source code and video streams live on your own server [README].
• Who it’s for: Privacy-focused organizations, government agencies, and technical teams who want Zoom-quality video without per-user billing or cloud vendor lock-in. Also non-technical founders who can find a deployment guide or a sysadmin.
• Cost savings: Zoom Pro runs $14.99/user/month. A 10-person team pays $150/month. Meet self-hosted runs on a $10–20/month VPS with zero per-user costs [README][1].
• Key strength: Built on LiveKit — one of the most mature open WebRTC SFU backends available — which means the audio/video quality and scaling story are legitimately solid, not bolted together from scratch. France’s DINUM deployed it to all French public servants in January 2026 [README].
• Key weakness: 1,879 GitHub stars is small relative to Jitsi or BigBlueButton. Documentation is sparse, especially for advanced features like recording and transcription. End-to-end encryption was still listed as “coming soon” at time of writing [README].

---

What is Meet

Meet (officially “La Suite Meet”) is a browser-based video conferencing application released under the MIT license by France’s Direction Interministérielle du Numérique (DINUM) — the French government’s digital transformation agency. It’s part of “La Suite Numérique,” a broader initiative to give French public institutions open-source alternatives to Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace [README].

The technical foundation is LiveKit, an open-source WebRTC SFU (Selective Forwarding Unit) that handles the hard parts: simulcast, codec negotiation (VP9, AV1), speaker detection, and selective subscription to video streams. Choosing LiveKit as the backend rather than building a media server from scratch is a meaningful architectural decision — it means Meet inherits years of optimization work from a project that has been production-tested at scale [README].

The name overlap is confusing. This is not Google Meet. The public instance runs at visio.numerique.gouv.fr and is restricted to French government employees (ProConnect authentication required). The software itself — the code on GitHub — is MIT-licensed and can be deployed by anyone [README].

On January 25, 2026, France’s Minister for Civil Service and State Reform announced the full rollout of Visio (the government’s Meet deployment) to all French public servants. That’s not a pilot — that’s production deployment at national scale. For a project with under 2,000 GitHub stars, it’s an unusually strong credibility signal [README].

---

Why people choose it

The case for self-hosted video conferencing in general is well-documented. Organizations that operate isolated networks, handle classified communications, or work under strict compliance frameworks (GDPR, HIPAA, national security requirements) often cannot rely on infrastructure they don’t control [1]. When video streams route through Zoom or Google Meet servers, they’re touching infrastructure you don’t own, governed by privacy policies that can change, and subject to the vendor’s security practices rather than yours [5].

Self-hosted video conferencing removes that dependency entirely: your streams travel through your network, your recordings live on your storage, and your user data stays inside your security perimeter [1]. As one analysis puts it, the economics often favor ownership over time — a 300-person organization paying $4,000–10,000 per month on video subscriptions typically hits break-even on self-hosted infrastructure within 18–24 months [1].

Within the self-hosted category, Meet’s specific positioning is government-grade reliability with a clean browser-first UX. No plugin installation, no app required — join from a URL. The French government’s decision to standardize on it rather than Jitsi (the older incumbent in the self-hosted space) or BigBlueButton suggests the LiveKit architecture gave them confidence in the scaling story for large meetings [README].

For non-government users, the appeal is simpler: Zoom has been getting worse [5]. Per-seat pricing grows with your team. Recording is paywalled. Privacy policies are written by lawyers, not users. An MIT-licensed alternative where you control the infrastructure answers all of those complaints at once.

---

Features

Based on the README and GitHub profile:

Core conferencing:

• Browser-based, no installation required [README]
• Optimized for large meetings (100+ participants) [README]
• Multiple simultaneous screen sharing streams [README]
• Non-persistent, secure chat during meetings [README]
• Meeting recording [README]
• Meeting transcription and summary (currently in beta) [README]
• Telephony integration [README]
• Customizable frontend styling [README]

Authentication and security:

• Robust authentication and access control [README]
• End-to-end encryption — listed as “coming soon” [README]
• The public government instance uses ProConnect (French government SSO)

LiveKit features inherited by default:

• Speaker detection [README]
• Simulcast (multiple resolution streams sent simultaneously, client picks what it needs) [README]
• SVC codecs: VP9, AV1 [README]
• Selective subscription (server only forwards streams to participants who need them) [README]
• End-to-end transport optimizations [README]

Deployment options:

• Kubernetes (used in production by DINUM) [README]
• Docker Compose [README]
• Community-contributed: Nix, YunoHost [README]

What’s missing or unclear:

• No breakout rooms mentioned in documentation
• No virtual background listed as a feature
• Recording setup lacks detailed documentation [README]
• Transcription is beta with no clear production timeline [README]

---

Pricing: SaaS vs self-hosted math

Meet has no cloud offering to compare against — it’s self-hosted first and only. The public government instance (visio.numerique.gouv.fr) is not a commercial product; it’s government infrastructure restricted to public servants.

So the pricing comparison is always self-host vs incumbent:

Zoom:

• Basic: Free, 40-minute group meeting cap
• Pro: $14.99/user/month
• Business: $19.99/user/month
• Business Plus: $25/user/month (includes recording and translation)

Google Meet:

• Free with a Google account, limited features
• Google Workspace Business Starter: $7/user/month

Microsoft Teams:

• Bundled with Microsoft 365 Business ($6–12.50/user/month)

Meet self-hosted:

• Software license: $0 (MIT) [README]
• VPS to run it: $10–20/month (a LiveKit-based server handling 50 concurrent users needs more RAM than a basic automation tool — budget at least 4GB RAM)
• LiveKit infrastructure: LiveKit’s self-hosted version is also open-source; you’re not paying per-minute to LiveKit when self-hosting [README]
• TURN server: required for participants behind strict NAT; Coturn is free, but you need a server for it

Concrete math for a 15-person team:

On Zoom Pro: 15 × $14.99 = $224.85/month, $2,698/year. On Google Workspace (for Meet): 15 × $7 = $105/month, $1,260/year. On Meet self-hosted: ~$15–25/month for a properly sized VPS + TURN server. ~$180–300/year.

The savings against Zoom: approximately $2,400/year for a 15-person team. Against Google Workspace: around $960–1,080/year — and you stop sending your meeting content through Google’s infrastructure, which is arguably the point.

Caveat: these numbers assume someone in your organization can handle initial deployment. If you need to hire a DevOps engineer for the afternoon, add $200–400 one-time. Still math that pays back within two months.

---

Deployment reality check

The README is honest about the state of documentation: “Some advanced features (ex: recording, transcription) lack detailed documentation. We’re working hard to provide comprehensive guides soon” [README]. That’s a yellow flag for non-technical users.

The base path — Docker Compose for a working meeting instance — is reasonably straightforward if you’ve done Docker before. The README points to LiveKit’s own deployment documentation as a supplement, which is well-maintained [README].

What you actually need:

• A Linux VPS with 4GB+ RAM (LiveKit SFU is more CPU and network intensive than most self-hosted apps)
• Docker and docker-compose
• A public IP and domain name — WebRTC requires it; you can’t run this on localhost and expect remote participants to connect
• A TURN server (Coturn) if your participants are behind strict NAT or corporate firewalls
• Basic understanding of opening firewall ports (TURN uses UDP ranges that need to be open)

What the community provides: Beyond Docker Compose and Kubernetes, community members have contributed Nix and YunoHost installation methods [README]. YunoHost in particular makes this accessible to non-technical users — it’s a server OS that wraps apps in one-click installs.

What can go sideways:

• TURN server misconfiguration is the most common failure mode in WebRTC self-hosting — participants behind corporate firewalls simply can’t connect if TURN isn’t working [2]
• Recording and transcription require additional services and lack detailed setup documentation [README]
• End-to-end encryption is not yet available [README], which matters if your security model requires it
• The project is 1,879 stars and government-backed, which is unusual — most self-hosted tools are either community-driven or VC-backed. The sustainability model is essentially “French government keeps funding La Suite Numérique.” That’s stable until it isn’t.

Realistic time estimate for a technical user familiar with Docker: 1–3 hours to a working instance. For a non-technical user following a YunoHost guide: 2–4 hours, assuming the TURN configuration cooperates.

---

Pros and cons

Pros

• MIT license — no strings. Not AGPLv3 (which requires open-sourcing modifications), not SSPL, not “fair-code.” You can embed this, white-label it, deploy it for clients, and modify it without calling a lawyer [README].
• Built on LiveKit, not from scratch. The SFU is production-tested by companies far larger than most self-hosters. You’re not running experimental media server code [README].
• Government production validation. France deploying this to all public servants is a meaningful proof-of-scale that most self-hosted video projects can’t claim [README].
• Browser-only, no installs. Participants join from a URL. No app download friction — which is the most reliable way to kill meeting attendance before it starts.
• Multiple screen sharing streams. Underrated feature: meeting participants can share their screens simultaneously, which most self-hosted tools don’t support [README].
• Transcription (beta). Automatic meeting summaries via speech-to-text, which Zoom charges extra for [README].
• $0 per-user cost. Fixed infrastructure cost regardless of team size [README].

Cons

• Sparse documentation for advanced features. Recording and transcription work but lack setup guides, by the project’s own admission [README]. You’ll spend time debugging.
• End-to-end encryption not yet available. If E2EE is a hard requirement (highly sensitive communications), this isn’t ready [README]. LiveKit supports E2EE; Meet hasn’t surfaced it yet.
• 1,879 stars at time of review. The codebase is real and government-backed, but the open-source community around it is small. Forum help, tutorials, and plugin ecosystems are proportionally thin.
• TURN setup is your problem. The base install doesn’t provision a TURN server, and WebRTC without TURN breaks for a meaningful percentage of real-world participants [2].
• No embedded commercial pricing page. The public instance is government-only. There’s no hosted paid tier for organizations that want to skip deployment — it’s self-host or nothing.
• No breakout rooms, virtual backgrounds, or whiteboard — at least, none documented or visible in the README. These are table-stakes features in the Zoom/Google Meet comparison.
• Sustainability is government funding. That’s stable but not community-owned. If DINUM’s budget priorities shift, development could slow.

---

Who should use this / who shouldn’t

Use Meet if:

• You’re running a team where someone has basic Docker/Linux competence and can handle the initial setup.
• Your compliance or privacy requirements mean video streams cannot touch US cloud infrastructure (GDPR residency, government security policy, healthcare).
• You want to avoid per-user licensing costs at a scale where Zoom or Google Workspace is getting expensive.
• You’re building a platform where you need to embed video conferencing and the MIT license matters.
• You’re already running other La Suite Numérique tools in a French government context [README].

Skip it (use Jitsi Meet instead) if:

• You want the largest self-hosted community, the most tutorials, and the most YunoHost/Helm chart maturity. Jitsi has been around longer and has a bigger ecosystem [5].
• You need integration with a specific platform (Nextcloud, Moodle) — Jitsi has more existing connectors.

Skip it (use BigBlueButton instead) if:

• Your primary use case is online education — virtual classrooms, presentation mode, polling, and learning management system integration.

Skip it (use MiroTalk instead) if:

• You want the lightest possible footprint, P2P architecture for small teams (no SFU required), or need a solution that works on minimal hardware [3][5].

Skip it (stay on Zoom or Google Meet) if:

• Nobody on your team can manage a Linux server and you can’t budget to hire someone for setup.
• You rely heavily on breakout rooms, virtual backgrounds, or deep calendar integrations.
• Your participants are non-technical and you need the most reliable “just click a link” experience with no NAT/firewall issues. The self-hosted TURN setup introduces failure modes that Zoom handles automatically.

---

Alternatives worth considering

Jitsi Meet — the incumbent in self-hosted video conferencing. Apache 2.0 licensed, larger community, more tutorials, more platform integrations. Jitsi’s own hosted version requires Google/Microsoft auth now [5], but self-hosted Jitsi avoids that. Trade-off: older codebase, Jicofo/Jitsi Videobridge architecture is more complex to maintain than LiveKit.

MiroTalk — lightweight, modular WebRTC suite with P2P (no SFU) and SFU options [3][5]. Runs on minimal hardware. AGPLv3 license. Good for small team meetings where you want zero infrastructure overhead for a 2-person call. Won’t scale to 100+ participants without the SFU variant.

BigBlueButton — the education-focused self-hosted option. Polling, presentation mode, shared notes, LMS integration. Heavy on resources; running it properly needs 8GB+ RAM. Overkill for regular business meetings.

Zoom — the incumbent. Easiest onboarding, best client app, most reliable for non-technical participants. $14.99/user/month starts to hurt at 10+ people, and you’re sending your meeting data through their infrastructure. No self-host option.

Google Meet — deeply integrated with Google Workspace. If you’re already paying for Workspace, it’s effectively free. Still Google. All your meeting content goes through their servers.

Whereby — browser-based, no install, cleaner UX than Zoom. SaaS only, $6.99/host/month. No self-host option.

For organizations that specifically need European infrastructure and data sovereignty, the realistic shortlist is Meet vs Jitsi. Pick Meet if you want the LiveKit architecture and government-grade validation. Pick Jitsi if you want the larger community and more documentation.

---

Bottom line

Meet is an unusual project: government-funded, MIT-licensed, built on a solid technical foundation (LiveKit), and already running in production at national scale. If those three facts were true of a VC-backed startup, it would be on every “best self-hosted video” list. The reason it isn’t is that the GitHub star count is low, the documentation is incomplete, and the project doesn’t have a marketing team.

For the right audience — technical teams, government-adjacent organizations, or founders who need data sovereignty and have someone who can deploy Docker — this is a legitimate Zoom alternative with better licensing than Jitsi and a more credible production track record than most self-hosted options. The missing E2EE, thin advanced documentation, and no commercial managed tier are real gaps. But the core — browser-based video conferencing at scale, MIT license, LiveKit quality — is real.

If the deployment is the blocker, that’s exactly the kind of one-time infrastructure setup that upready.dev handles for clients. Fixed fee, done, you own it.

---

Sources

1. Olga Afonina, SecuMeet — “7 Best Self-Hosted Video Conferencing Tools for 2026” (January 27, 2026). https://secumeet.com/reviews/self-hosted-video-conference
2. Aliaksei Saroka, Medium — “Self-hosted video conference for friends in 20 min” (May 11, 2020). https://medium.com/@lehasvv2009/self-hosted-video-conference-for-friends-in-20-min-1b44a0834f3a
3. mirotalk, Reddit r/selfhosted — “Built my own self-hosted Zoom/Meet/Teams alternative (MiroTalk)”. https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1mygv3l/built_my_own_selfhosted_zoommeetteams_alternative/
4. Meet Hour — “Enterprise Self Host Video Conference”. https://meethour.io/products/video-conference/enterprise-selfhost
5. Justin Ferriman — “My Self-Hosted Zoom Alternative” (October 13, 2025). https://justinferriman.com/my-self-hosted-zoom-alternative

Primary sources:

• GitHub repository and README: https://github.com/suitenumerique/meet (1,879 stars, MIT license)
• Public instance: https://visio.numerique.gouv.fr