Comparison of instant messaging protocols

The following is a comparison of instant messaging protocols. It contains basic general information about the protocols.

Table of instant messaging protocols

Protocol	Creator	First public release date	License	Identity (not inc. alias)	Asynchronous message relaying	Transport Layer Security	End-to-end encryption	Unlimited number of contacts	Bulletins to all contacts	One-to-many routing 4	Spam protection	Group, channel or conference support	Audio/VoIP support	Webcam/Video	Batch file sharing	Media synchronisation	Serverless 6 (decentralized)
Bitmessage	Jonathan Warren	2012 Nov	Open standard	Alphanumeric address	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes (through proof-of-work)	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes
Gadu-Gadu	GG Network	2000 Jul 17	Proprietary	Unique number e.g. 12345678	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Centralistic	Yes 5 (simple)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
IRC	Jarkko Oikarinen	1988 Aug	Open standard	Nickname!Username@hostname (or "hostmask") e.g. user!~usr@a.b.com1	Yes, but via a memo system that differs from the main system	Yes, depending on individual server support	No	No3	No	Simplistic multicast	Medium	Yes (everyone, multiple simultaneous, any size)	No	No	Yes	No	No
Matrix	Matrix.org	2014	Open standard	Matrix user ID (MXID)	Yes	Yes, mandatory	Optional	?	?	No	?	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	?	No
MSNP (Windows Live Messenger, etc.)	Microsoft	1999 Jul	Proprietary	Email address (Microsoft account)	Yes	No	No	Only for certified robots	No	Centralistic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
MTProto (Telegram)	Telegram Messenger LLP	2013 Aug	Open standard	Phone number (e.g. +1234567890), nickname (e.g. @example)	Yes	Yes	Optional	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes, voice messages	No	Yes	Yes	No
Mumble	Thorvald Natvig	1999 Jul	Open standard	Username	Yes	Yes	No	Only for certified robots	No	Centralistic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
OSCAR (AIM, ICQ)	AOL	1997	Proprietary	Username, Email Address or UIN e.g. 12345678	Yes	Yes (Aim Pro, Aim Lite)	No	No	No	Centralistic	client-based	Yes (Multiple, simultaneous)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
RVP (Windows Messenger, etc.)	Microsoft	1997 Mar	Proprietary (Discontinued)	Windows Active Directory Login	No	No	No	?	No	Centralistic	None	No	?	?	No	No	No
Ricochet	Invisible.im	2014 Mar	Open standard	Tor onion address	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes
Ring (based on DHT and SIP)	Savoir-faire Linux Inc.	2015 May	Open standard	40-digit address	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Medium	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Signal Protocol	Open Whisper Systems	2014 Feb	Open standard	Phone number (e.g. +1234567890)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	Yes	Yes, contact blocking	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
SIP/SIMPLE	IETF	2002 Dec	Open standard	user@hostname	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Medium	?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Depends on implemenation
Skype	Skype	2003 Aug	Proprietary	Username	Yes	Proprietary	No	No	No	?	?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Steam Friends	Valve Corporation	2003 Sep 12	Proprietary	SteamID/Username or Unique Number	Yes	Proprietary	?	No, although rising	Yes	?	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
TOC2	AOL	2005 Sep	Proprietary (Discontinued)	Username or UIN e.g. 12345678	Yes	No	No	No	No	Centralistic	No	paying members only	?	?	Partial	?	No
TOX (based on DHT)	irungentoo (github user)	2013 June	Open standard	Public & Private key	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	Yes
Tuenti	Tuenti	2006	Proprietary	Username	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	No
Windows Messenger service	Microsoft	1990	Proprietary (Discontinued)	NetBIOS	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
XMPP/Jingle (Google Talk) (Whatsapp)	Jeremie Miller, standardized via IETF	1999 Jan	Open standard	Jabber ID (JID) e.g. usr@a.b.c/home2	Yes	Yes	Optional, multiple implementations	Yes	Yes	Unicast lists	Several Standardized Types	Optional	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
YMSG (Yahoo! Messenger)	Yahoo!	1998, March 9	Proprietary	Username	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Centralistic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Zephyr Notification Service	MIT	1987	Open standard	Kerberos principal e.g. user@ATHENA.MIT.EDU	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Protocol	Creator	First public release date	License	Identity (not inc. alias)	Asynchronous message relaying	Transport Layer Security	End-to-end encryption	Unlimited number of contacts	Bulletins to all contacts	One-to-many routing 4	Spam protection	Group, channel or conference support	Audio/VoIP support	Webcam/Video	Batch file sharing	Media synchronisation	Serverless 6 (decentralized)

Note 1: In ~usr@a.b.com, the a.b.com part is known as the "hostmask" and can either be the server being connected from or a "cloak" granted by the server administrator; a more realistic example is ~myname@myisp.example.com. The tilde generally indicates that the username provided by the IRC client on signon was not verified with the ident service.

Note 2: In usr@a.b.c/home, the home part is a "resource", which distinguishes the same user when logged in from multiple locations, possibly simultaneously; a more realistic example is user@xmppserver.example.com/home

Note 3: Scalability issue: The protocol gets increasingly inefficient with the number of contacts.

Note 4: One-to-many/many-to-many communications primarily comprise presence information, publish/subscribe and groupchat distribution. Some technologies have the ability to distribute data by multicast, avoiding bottlenecks on the sending side caused by the number of recipients. Efficient distribution of presence is currently however a technological scalability issue for both XMPP and SIP/SIMPLE.

Note 5: There have been reports from users that the antispam filter is used to censor links to other IM programs and some websites.

Note 6: Serverless protocols don't have any central entities (usually companies) controlling the network. Serverless network consists only of clients. Such systems are usually extremely resistant to surveillance and censorship.

See also

• Comparison of instant messaging clients
• Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients
• Comparison of LAN messengers
• LAN messenger
• Secure instant messaging