What’s the Right Messaging App for You?

There are so many messaging apps floating around, some are quite famous, while others are not as much, and at first, you think that there aren’t any noticeable differences.

But, if you look closer, especially when it comes to data security and privacy, obvious and unique differences become evident.

It’s not always easy to combine security with user experience, and one downside of a privacy-focused approach is the potential data theft that occurs if you ever happen to lose access to your device.

To compensate for this drawback without weakening security and privacy protection, Pravica’s safeguard feature protects your data even if your phone is lost or stolen.

Your messages are encrypted by default and not accessible to anyone but you and the intended recipient.  

Pravica doesn’t store your data centrally on a server. Instead, your data is stored directly on your device and is therefore protected in the best possible way against data leaks and unauthorized access by third parties.

Due to several debates and arguments around WhatsApp’s privacy policy, users around the globe wonder which chat, and messaging apps are trustworthy.

Telegram and Signal are often considered to be secure alternatives to WhatsApp. But are they really equal in terms of security and privacy protection?

To answer this question and many more mind-boggling questions about trust, privacy, security, data leakage, and more, we put together a comparison that shows how the mentioned services stack up against one another in different aspects.

Telegram

Telegram hasn’t got what it takes to be a secure WhatsApp alternative: By default, end-to-end encryption is disabled, and messages are permanently stored on a server, where they could, in theory, be read by the service provider at any time.

Signal

Signal enjoys an outstanding reputation among experts, and it’s certainly a good alternative to WhatsApp. However, just like WhatsApp, it requires users to disclose personally identifiable information: Providing a phone number is mandatory.

As a US-based IT service provider, Signal is also subject to the CLOUD Act, which entitles US authorities to access the service provider’s data.

Pravica

When Pravica was launched our main goal was to provide a communication suite different and better than everything available on the market, that’s as secure and private, and user-friendly as possible.

Given this goal, it’s no surprise that Pravica stacks up well against the competition in terms of security and data protection.

It is the only one of the four services (including Whatsapp) that follow and adheres to the “Privacy by Design” principle: No data collection, no data generation, no data storage, no ads, and Pravica can be used without providing any personal data whatsoever, just your decentralized digital identity.

Find out which is the right messaging app for you:

Signal vs. Pravica

Both Signal and Pravica were designed with security and privacy in mind. Signal enjoys an outstanding reputation among experts, and it’s certainly a solid solution in terms of security.

As far as privacy is concerned, however, a striking drawback appears when compared to Pravica. Signal requires users to disclose personally identifiable information.

Pravica, on the other hand, doesn’t: Users don’t have to provide their phone number, email address, social handles, or any personal information.

All they need is their decentralized digital identity to start using Pravica. The fact that Signal, being a US-based IT service provider, is subject to the CLOUD Act only makes this privacy deficit worse.

Telegram vs. Pravica

Because Telegram already offered optional end-to-end encryption when this technology was not yet widespread, it’s sometimes wrongly labeled “secure” to this day.

However, Telegram fundamentally differs from secure solutions like Pravica since it’s essentially a cloud solution.

By default, Telegram permanently stores messages on its server, where they could, in theory, be read by the service provider at any time.

Pravica, on the other hand, rules out the possibility that anyone other than the intended recipient can read messages thanks to end-to-end encryption and a decentralized approach- no servers, no third parties involved.

WhatsApp vs. Pravica

WhatsApp is the most popular instant messenger, and this is its biggest advantage. However, the weak privacy protection, which is a result of the service’s business model, is an even bigger disadvantage.

Facebook, the owner of WhatsApp, is financed by selling targeted advertisements. This business model requires as detailed user information as possible.

Therefore, WhatsApp cannot be used without disclosing personally identifiable information, and user data is used by Facebook for marketing purposes.

Pravica can be used without providing any personal data or information whatsoever and designed from the ground up to secure user data.

It all Boils Down to Both Security and Privacy not One Versus the Other

Which messenger is the most secure? Which one offers the most comprehensive data privacy? In terms of security and data privacy, nothing compares to Pravica.

It’s the only service that is built on blockchain technology and secured by Bitcoin.

It can be used privately and anonymously, i.e., without providing personally identifiable information (such as a phone number or email address), just your decentralized digital identity.

Signal is also designed with security and data protection in mind, but since it’s a US service, it is subject to the CLOUD Act, and it requires users to disclose personally identifiable information.

Telegram is a cloud solution and cannot be considered “secure” by all means: Not only are messages not end-to-end encrypted by default, but they are also permanently stored on a server, where the service provider (or hackers) could read them at any time.

WhatsApp does apply end-to-end encryption; however, user data can be used for marketing purposes according to the privacy policy, the service is not GDPR-compliant, and requires both personal data and address-book access.