comparison · Messaging

conversations.im vs Cwtch

Both are listed in Messaging. The table below pulls directly from each service’s data sheet; see each entry for sourcing.

conversations.im — summary

conversations.

• + Open-standard XMPP with OMEMO end-to-end encryption.
• + Operator (Daniel Gultsch) maintains both the server hosting and the canonical client.
• + Paid model removes ad-incentive risks.
• − Operator binds account to whichever payment method you use.
• − Federation properties depend on contact's server.
• − Facts need re-verification by operator (last seeded 2026-01).

Full entry → conversations.im

Cwtch — summary

Cwtch is the no-server, Tor-onion-service-only messenger from Open Privacy.

• + No accounts, no central server, no metadata aggregation point.
• + Tor-onion-service transport by default.
• + Group chats with cryptographic membership rather than trusted server.
• − Smaller user base than Briar or SimpleX; finding contacts already on Cwtch is the friction.
• − Tor-only transport means latency is what Tor latency is.
• − Facts need re-verification by operator (last seeded 2026-01).

Full entry → Cwtch

When to choose which

Treat this section as heuristic. Privacy properties depend on how you use the service, not just which one you pick.

• Choose conversations.im if open-standard xmpp with omemo end-to-end encryption..
• Choose Cwtch if no accounts, no central server, no metadata aggregation point..
• Either way, re-check the entry’s last verified date — the Messaging category churns.

Mentioned in (combined)

Pages on the site that reference conversations.im, Cwtch, or both.

Compared as of Jan 1, 2026.