Ranking the Best and Worst Encrypted Messaging Apps.

· 7 min read
Ranking the Best and Worst Encrypted Messaging Apps.
Photo by Alexander Shatov / Unsplash

Protecting your privacy when communicating digitally is more important than ever. With privacy and security becoming increasingly important, many people are switching to encrypted messaging apps for sensitive communications. However, with so many options on the market, it can be difficult to know which apps are truly private and secure. We’ll analyze and compare the key characteristics of 7 popular encrypted messaging apps.

Important Characteristics of Encrypted Messaging Apps

There are several factors that affect the privacy and anonymity of apps.

  • Encryption: Whether conversations are end-to-end encrypted, including one-on-one chats as well as group conversations. End-to-end encryption for all communication types is ideal. Some apps only apply it to one-on-one chats, leaving group conversations unprotected.
  • Identity Verification: Whether the app requires a real-world identifier like a phone number. Apps that don’t require identifiers are better for anonymous conversations. Requiring real-world identifiers like phone numbers links metadata that can reveal who users are communicating with, when, and from where. This poses risks, especially for whistleblowers. However, identities may not be a concern between contacts who already know each other, like family members.
  • Metadata Protection: Whether the app hides metadata like traffic patterns and conceals who users are communicating with. Features like onion routing help achieve this.
  • Decentralization: Whether servers are maintained by the app creator or decentralized without a single point of control. Decentralized infrastructure is more resistant to censorship. Obfuscating traffic by routing it through an encrypted network like Tor anonymizes usage and makes metadata like traffic patterns untraceable. Centralized server infrastructure introduces single points of failure or observation by authorities. Decentralized or self-hosted options mitigate these risks.
  • Offline Capabilities: Whether the app can be used without an internet connection, like through Bluetooth. This enables covert communication. Being able to communicate offline without an internet connection provides additional security, though with limited functionality. Storing messages only on devices, not app servers, prevents bulk message decryption if server data is seized.
  • Data Storage: Where messages are stored – on the device, centralized servers, or both. Centralized storage enables mass surveillance.
  • Ease of Use: Factors like available platforms, features for multimedia chatting, and friction to initiate conversations. Balance of privacy/security with usability.

With these factors in mind, let’s examine how the top 7 encrypted messaging apps

7. WhatsApp

As a Facebook subsidiary, it collects extensive metadata like identities, contacts, locations, and behavior. This data is shared with Facebook for advertising and potential government access.

End-to-end encryption only applies to one-on-one chats, leaving group conversations exposed. The app’s ubiquitous usage and linkage to verified Facebook profiles make it easy to link identities to conversation topics, diminishing any sense of anonymity.

There is simply no way to achieve meaningful privacy or security using WhatsApp. Its extensive data harvesting and exposure of metadata renders encryption largely irrelevant.

Despite using an encryption protocol similar to the one used on Signal, it fails at privacy in many ways:

  • Your real identity and phone number are visible due to requiring a phone verification. All your contacts and relationships are also exposed through integration with Facebook.
  • Only one-on-one chats are encrypted – group chats are not.
  • Metadata like who you contact, when, and your location are all collected since it’s connected to your Facebook identity.
  • WhatsApp shares your data, contacts, location history, and more with Facebook and Instagram. There are significant blackmail and surveillance risks.

WhatsApp has the façade of encryption but completely compromises users’ privacy due to its ties with the ubiquitous Facebook platform. It should not be trusted for sensitive communications.

6. Telegram

Telegram requires phone numbers like WhatsApp, revealing metadata about usage and contacts. Encryption again only protects one-on-one chats. However, it does not tie usage to verified identities the way Facebook profiles do with WhatsApp.

For casual use between contacts who already know each other’s phone numbers, like family members, Telegram may suffice. However, its centralized server infrastructure introduces similar metadata risks to authorities and makes self-hosting impossible.

Its popularity and feature-rich user experience give it an edge over WhatsApp. But overall Telegram offers limited privacy compared to options that minimize metadata disclosure and enable self-hosting control.

Telegram represents a slight improvement over WhatsApp due to not verifying identities through Facebook. However, it still has notable flaws:

  • Phone numbers are required, exposing your real identity and contacts to metadata analysis.
  • Only one-on-one chats are encrypted – group chats are not private.
  • No protection for metadata like who you contact or when due to using phone numbers.
  • Centralized servers present a single point of failure and potential for surveillance.

Telegram offers more features than WhatsApp but provides similar if not less privacy overall due to phone number registration deconspiracy communications. It can be used safely with family but not for private or anonymous messaging with unknown individuals.

5. Signal

Signal applies end-to-end encryption to all communications, including group chats, distinguishing it from the above apps. And it collects less usage metadata.

But like Telegram and WhatsApp, relying on phone numbers as identifiers means metadata about contacts and patterns of interaction can still be gleaned. This poses risks depending on a user’s threat model and who they communicate with.

For purposes of messaging families where identities are already known, Signal provides a secure option. Its mainstream usability also makes it easy for less technical contacts to participate privately.

Signal addresses some of Telegram’s issues by encrypting all communication types including group chats. However, it still requires phone numbers, reducing privacy and exposing metadata:

  • Phone numbers allow analysis of who you contact and when via call/message logs.
  • Centralized servers present surveillance risks like in Telegram, though data is better encrypted.
  • Signal’s additional encryption of group chats is certainly an advantage over WhatsApp and Telegram, making it preferable for some use cases like family groups.

However, for truly private and anonymous communications Signal is limited due to using phone numbers. It fails to hide the metadata of contacts and is less suitable than apps without identifiers. Still, it remains relatively secure for daily drivers compared to non-private options.

4. Threema

Threema stands out for not requiring phone numbers, helping protect users’ identities. This elevates its privacy above apps tethered to telecom metadata.

However, its exclusively centralized infrastructure means a single globally accessible point of data for authorities to target. While not a problem for everyday business use, which is the primary focus of the app, this tradeoff is riskier for use cases involving anonymity or sensitive topics.

Threema enables strong encryption without phone number exposure. However, its centralized architecture leaves it more vulnerable to government interference or data seizure compared to self-hostable options.

Threema improves on the previous apps by not requiring phone numbers or other real identifiers. With the anonymity of identities, it avoids a key metadata leakage:

  • End-to-end encryption protects the content of messages.
  • No phone numbers or identities means less metadata exposed through traffic analysis.
  • Has more robust business functionality and paid applications.


XMPP is an open messaging protocol rather than a single app. By enabling self-hosted servers completely controlled by individual users, XMPP provides top-level anonymity, encryption, and data ownership. Advanced configurations even allow hiding traffic via Tor-like onion routing.

XMPP’s flexibility makes it highly privatized and resistant to censorship. However, advanced setup and technical know-how present usability tradeoffs compared to mainstream apps.

  • End-to-end encryption with OMEMO extension.
  • Optional anonymous account creation with no required identifiers.
  • Can be self-hosted on personal servers for full decentralization and control.
  • Supports onion routing networks like Tor for maximum metadata privacy.

Because of the choice of clients and customizable server infrastructure, XMPP provides power users the ability to finely tune their setup for optimum privacy. However, its more technical nature makes it less beginner-friendly than dedicated apps.

2. Briar

Designed with espionage in mind, Briar enables covert communication without the internet through secure Bluetooth and local device syncing. Tor-routed internet connectivity provides an extra layer of privacy.

Its unique procedures like pre-arranged device pairing expand real-world covert communication possibilities. No centralized servers means no single point of failure or observation.

However, Briar’s sophisticated model optimized for deep cover agents presents significant usability challenges for average users. Its frictionless encryption comes at the cost of very specialist setup requirements.

Briar, designed specifically for covert communications even without internet access:

  • Completely decentralized and serverless, with symmetric encryption.
  • Can communicate directly between devices via Bluetooth or other methods without online interaction.
  • Also supports Tor for maximum online privacy similar to Session.
  • Open source for independent security auditing and no commercial interests.

Briar’s Offline capabilities and extreme privacy focus make it extremely secure, though it understandably trades usability for these benefits and remains a niche tool rather than a daily driver.

1. Session

Session stands out as the overall best balance of sophisticated privacy protections and ease of use. Its decentralized infrastructure and Loki onion routing network anonymize traffic without exposing server locations to subpoenas or data requests.

Contacting others requires no metadata, as public IDs facilitate conversation initiation over Loki. No single entity maintains centralized data. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and only visible to the communicating parties.

While Session depends on third-party servers, constant traffic duplication across “swarms” of volunteer servers makes observation or mass metadata collection virtually impossible. Multimedia streams remain its sole centralized element as an ongoing area of focus for decentralization.

Of all options, Session excels at usability without compromising privacy fundamentals. Users need not reveal identifying information about themselves or contacts to communicate securely.

Session earns top marks thanks to a uniquely private yet still very usable design:

  • End-to-end encryption with forward secrecy like Signal but without phone numbers or identifiers.
  • Data and metadata are highly distributed across a global “Loki” onion-routed network.
  • Servers are incentivized by cryptocurrency making the infrastructure highly resistant to censorship.
  • Supports multimedia chatting and a seamless user experience across all platforms and devices.

By combining the levels of privacy provided by tools like Briar with the usability of mainstream apps, Session stands out as the best overall choice – especially for communicating with unknown parties where metadata privacy is critical.


Not all encrypted messaging apps are equally strong on privacy. Understanding usage context and individual threat models is key to determining the best fit. Apps requiring real identifiers like phone numbers prove the least private due to linking metadata. Apps with distributed infrastructure and onion routing performed best. For most use cases, Signal remains a good choice – but Session stands out as the front-runner especially when anonymity matters most. I hope this overview helps you select the best-encrypted messenger fit for your individual needs and threat model. Let me know if you have any other questions!

Source: Best and Worst Encrypted Messaging Apps (7 Apps Ranked)

## Convertkit Newsletter