cpaas.co

LiveKit

livekit.io

Verified

Open-source WebRTC infrastructure, self-hostable or managed. Used as one of iCall's backends.

Real-time media · Global

WebRTC
Realtime media

The clearest example in this directory of what an open-source dependency does to a buyer's leverage.

Disclosed relationship: one of our own products, iCall, uses LiveKit as an optional backend. That is why it appears here, and it is why the disclosure is on the card rather than in a footnote.

It is marked verified because every criterion below can be checked against a public repository and public documentation without asking anyone for anything — which is exactly the property the criteria are trying to reward.

Assessment

Assessment
Operational transparency	Met	Source is public; issues and incidents are visible in the open.
Documented interfaces	Met	Documented SDKs and server APIs, all publicly readable.
Delivery accountability	Met	Session and track-level quality metrics exposed to the application.
Consent and compliance	Not assessed	Out of scope: it carries media, it does not decide who may be contacted.
Data handling	Met	Self-hosting means media residency is the operator's choice, verifiable by deployment.
Commercial clarity	Met	Cloud pricing published; self-hosting is free.

Ecosystem

How the directory is assessed

Three listing states are used, and the difference between them is what has been checked — never how much we like the organisation.

Verified. Assessed against all six criteria below, with the evidence recorded.

Listed. Included because it is materially relevant to the category, but not yet assessed. A listing is not an endorsement.

Under review. An assessment is in progress, or a previously verified listing has raised a question that has not been resolved.

The six criteria

Operational transparency. Is there a public status page, and does it reflect real incidents — including partial degradation, not only total outages?
Documented interfaces. Is there a published specification a developer can integrate against without a sales call?
Delivery accountability. Are failures reported with a cause, and is there a defined retry and escalation path?
Consent and compliance posture. Is opt-out handled at the platform level, and is consent tracked per channel rather than as a single flag?
Data handling. Are storage locations, retention periods and sub-processors documented?
Commercial clarity. Is pricing published, or at least explained without obligation?

On "not assessed"

Most listings have several criteria marked not assessed, including large and reputable companies. That is the honest state: some of these questions can only be answered by working through documentation we have not yet worked through, and marking a criterion met on reputation would make the whole scorecard decorative.

Not assessed is not a failure. It is an admission that we have not checked, which is more useful to you than a guess.

On our own products

They are assessed against the same six criteria and marked as ours. One currently sits under review rather than verified, on the delivery criterion: its transport reaches WhatsApp through an unofficial protocol implementation, which is disclosed on its card and discussed at length in our own writing.

A directory that exempted its publisher's products would not be worth consulting.