A Group Chat Application is a form of Instant Messaging Application, that specifically allows multiple users to digitally communicate with each other in a “shared space”. These apps can be used for various purposes, including casual conversations with friends and family, or for more structured communication within teams or communities.
The convenience of Group Chat software has proven to be particularly attractive to business organizations as evidenced by recent usage data:
Find more statistics at Statista
Recently, it’s also come to light that these softwares are in use by military and defense, when U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth texted on a non-government group chat ahead of U.S. airstrikes in Yemen.
Interestingly, the software used by the US Military in this particular operation was Signal Chat, which is actually an open source project, which is completely free to use and download.
Their use of the software became publicly known after a private citizen (a journalist at The Atlantic) was accidentally added to the group chat, which would become a major news headline.
Naturally, this leads one to wonder:
Which is the better open source chat software for military applications: Rocket.Chat or Signal?
Here’s a comprehensive comparison guide tailored specifically for Rocket.Chat vs Signal Chat in the context of Military and Defense Use-Cases. This analysis considers operational security, deployment flexibility, control, compliance, and collaboration features.
Military application gives a new meaning to the term, “Mission-critical”, so we’re interested in which free open source chat software would be the right choice for use by Military & Defense organizations.
Here’s what we came up with:
Table of Contents
🚀 Rocket.Chat vs Signal Chat for Military and Defense Applications
Let’s start with a brief description of our options:
🚀 Rocket.Chat
Rocket.Chat is an open-source communication platform designed for secure team collaboration. It offers self-hosting, granular administrative control, integration with internal systems, and supports text, voice, and video communications. It is commonly used in enterprise, healthcare, and government environments where data sovereignty, compliance, and customization are critical.
Key Traits:
- Self-hosted or cloud options
- LDAP/SSO support
- Role-based access control
- Integrations with tools like Jitsi, Jira, GitHub
- Suitable for secure, regulated environments (e.g., defense, healthcare)
🔐 Signal
Signal is a privacy-focused messaging app that offers end-to-end encrypted messaging and calls by default. It is free, open source, and designed for individual use without administrative oversight. Signal is trusted globally by journalists, activists, and users who require strong privacy, but it lacks centralized control or enterprise features.
Key Traits:
- Always-on end-to-end encryption
- Requires a phone number to register
- No self-hosting or integration options
- Simple and secure user interface
- Ideal for private, anonymous, ad-hoc communication
| Feature | Rocket.Chat | Signal Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment Type | Self-hosted / On-premise / Cloud | Fully cloud-hosted (Signal Foundation servers) |
| Source Code | Open Source (MIT License) | Open Source (Server: AGPLv3, Client: GPLv3) |
| End-to-End Encryption (E2EE) | Optional (enabled for direct messages and private groups; requires setup) | Always-on E2EE for all messages and calls |
| Control Over Data | Full control with on-premise install | No control (hosted by Signal Foundation) |
| User Identity Verification | Configurable (LDAP, OAuth, 2FA, etc.) | Phone number required (mandatory) |
| Metadata Retention | Configurable | Retains minimal metadata, but users must trust Signal’s infrastructure |
| Group Management | Advanced: Teams, Roles, Permissions, LDAP/AD integration | Limited group management, primarily for casual use |
| File Sharing | Configurable limits, anti-virus scanning, auditing | Secure, but no advanced DLP (Data Loss Prevention) |
| Audit Logging | Yes (Syslog, MongoDB, or custom integrations) | No audit trail access (closed system) |
| Voice/Video Calls | Built-in with Jitsi/BigBlueButton integration; can be self-hosted | Built-in E2EE voice/video |
| Offline Availability | Accessible over LAN (self-hosted); resilient to WAN outages | Internet connection to Signal servers is mandatory |
| Compliance | Can be configured to meet FedRAMP, NIST, DoD STIG with proper setup | No customization or compliance frameworks |
| Integration with Other Systems | Webhooks, REST API, scripting, automation tools | No integrations supported |
| Military Use-Case Readiness | Suitable for air-gapped networks, encrypted networks, or secure zones | Not suitable for classified or disconnected environments |
| Mobile/Desktop Support | Native apps + web interface; supports custom branding | Native apps only (Signal Desktop via linking with mobile) |
| User Onboarding | Manual or automated provisioning | Requires mobile number; no anonymous or ID-based access |
| Data Sovereignty | Fully sovereign when self-hosted | U.S.-based servers (no self-hosting option) |
| Maturity & Community | Enterprise-grade adoption across healthcare, banking, and defense | Consumer-focused with some NGO/government adoption |
| Primary Use Case | Secure internal collaboration, ops rooms, incident response | Personal secure messaging and whistleblower comms |
🔐 Security Comparison
| Security Aspect | Rocket.Chat | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| E2EE | Optional (requires setup) | Default |
| Transport Encryption | TLS (configurable) | TLS |
| Zero-Knowledge Storage | Optional with E2EE plugins | Yes (for message content) |
| Self-Hosting | ✅ | ❌ |
| Air-Gapped Usage | ✅ | ❌ |
| Encryption Key Control | User- or admin-controlled | Signal server facilitates delivery but cannot access content |
| Federation/Isolation | Can run isolated, federated, or hybrid | Centralized; no federation |
🎯 Recommendation for Military Use
✅ Choose Rocket.Chat if:
- You require on-premise or air-gapped deployment.
- Data sovereignty, auditability, and access control are mandatory.
- You need LDAP, RBAC, or AD user management.
- You plan to integrate with command-and-control (C2) systems or mission-critical apps.
- You are handling classified or sensitive operations that cannot traverse public infrastructure.
🚫 Avoid Signal if:
- You need organizational control over user accounts or messages.
- Your environment does not allow mobile numbers, internet connectivity, or external cloud dependencies.
- You must maintain audit logs or integrate with defense infrastructure.
Most Budget-Friendly Chat App for Militaries?
For militaries looking to enhance their operations with Group Chat Software, it’s important to also weigh the monetary expense of each before making a final decision.
Here is a detailed comparison of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and Administrative Control over Group Access for Rocket.Chat vs Signal in Military Applications:
💰 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Comparison
| Cost Factor | Rocket.Chat | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Software License | Free (MIT License) | Free (open source) |
| Hosting Infrastructure | Self-hosted: requires own servers, VMs, storage | Cloud-hosted: no hosting cost to user |
| Setup & Configuration | Requires sysadmin/devops resources | None – ready to use |
| Maintenance | Requires ongoing updates, backups, monitoring, etc. | None – Signal maintains all systems |
| Security Hardening | Customizable: may involve VPN, firewall, hardened OS | Built-in E2EE, no server access |
| Integration & Customization | Optional but may incur dev cost | Not supported |
| Compliance Implementation | Time and cost to meet FedRAMP/NIST/DoD STIG | Not applicable—no compliance tooling |
| Support Options | Paid enterprise support available | Community only |
📊 Estimated 3-Year TCO Summary
| Deployment Size | Rocket.Chat (Self-hosted) | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| Small Unit (10 users) | $2,000 – $5,000 USD | $0 USD (no infra/admin cost) |
| Mid-Sized Operation (100 users) | $10,000 – $30,000 USD | $0 USD |
| Large Command (500+ users) | $50,000+ USD (hardware, HA, support) | $0 USD |
💡 Signal is lower-cost in terms of infrastructure and maintenance but unsuitable for classified or managed deployments. Both Signal and Rocket.Chat are low risk for vendor lock-in.
🔐 Administrative Control Over Group Access
| Feature | Rocket.Chat | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| User Provisioning | Manual, LDAP, AD, or SSO-based provisioning | Users self-register via phone number |
| Group Creation Restrictions | Admins can fully control who can create/manage groups | Any user can create a group |
| Group Membership Controls | Role-based access, team-level grouping, forced membership | Invite-only, with no central oversight |
| Directory Integration | Full support (LDAP, Active Directory) | ❌ Not supported |
| Permission Management | Granular RBAC per room, team, channel, or user | ❌ Not configurable |
| Audit & Logging | Available (Syslog, DB-level, external SIEM) | ❌ No access to logs |
| Guest Access | Configurable guest links or restricted temporary access | ❌ Not supported |
🏆 Winner: Rocket.Chat
- Rocket.Chat offers full administrative control over users, teams, groups, and access policies. It’s suitable for command-level oversight in secure, structured environments.
- Signal lacks these capabilities entirely—group management is informal, uncontrolled, and limited to personal or field-level use.
✅ Final Recommendations
| Use Case | Best Choice |
|---|---|
| Structured unit/group management | Rocket.Chat |
| Classified/air-gapped communication | Rocket.Chat |
| Rapid secure comms with civilians/NGOs | Signal |
| Cost-free field ops with no infra | Signal |
Final Verdict
| Use Case | Best Choice |
|---|---|
| Air-Gapped or Private Tactical Networks | Rocket.Chat |
| Ad-Hoc Field Comms with Civilian/NGO Partners | Signal |
| Compliance with DoD/IC Requirements | Rocket.Chat |
| Casual Secure Messaging Among Personnel | Signal |
Summary
While Signal is excellent for encrypted, anonymous communication, it lacks the control, extensibility, and compliance capabilities required for structured military application. Under no circumstances should Signal be used for sensitive, mission-critical communications.
Rocket.Chat, on the other hand, offers full control, auditability, and customizability, making it far better suited for secure defense communication environments.