A custom chat app must be powered with a messaging protocol that executes the real-time communication between users. Knowing how these protocols work is vital to understanding what’s possible when it comes to building a custom instant messaging application.
The most popular protocol on the market is XMPP. That doesn’t mean, however, that Matrix and MQTT don’t have anything to offer. Whether you compare XMPP vs Matrix or XMPP vs MQTT, each protocol has its pros and cons and can be useful for different purposes, so, as in case of most software development projects, everything comes down to understanding your needs and priorities.
I sat down with Paweł Dorofiejczyk, our Solution Architect and expert in communications technology, to help you make the right decision as you pick the best messaging protocol for your chat application.
What is XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol)?
XMPP stands for Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (it was formerly known as Jabber). It is an open source technology that is expandable and supports the transmission of current information, including data.
WhatsApp, the most popular messaging app in the world, is built with XMPP. For other examples I suggest you take a look at 22 companies that use XMPP in their applications.
XMPP follows the client-server architecture pattern. To apply XMPP effectively, you have to pass it through an appropriate transport binding such as TCP/IP or HTTP.
Pros of XMPP
Decentralized architecture
The protocol uses a client-server model which means that users do not interact with each other directly; there is no central server (like in e.g. Telegram) that relays messages. Instead, every provider on the XMPP network runs their own server and every user is allocated an XMPP address (JabberID) that works like an email address with an IP address/domain name and a username for the resident server.
Top-notch security built into the presence protocol
Users are required to authenticate both host servers and messages to avoid the risk of spoofing and reduce the risk of spam. Personal identity in the XMPP protocol is strong. Additional security layers can be implemented by requiring clients to install valid security certificates for identity confirmation.
Multiple Extension Protocols
XMPP offers a lot of Extension Protocols (or XEPs) that define concrete functionalities of the chat application, making it easy for developers to build chat applications.
Two types of encryption
With XMPP, the first encryption takes place in the application using SASL. Once a connection is established, all client-server exchanges are encrypted with Transport Layer Security (TLS). Such double encryption significantly lowers the risk of getting attacked.
Effective support community
The extensive support community is one of the greatest advantages of XMPP. You can easily get in touch with them via the protocol’s official website.
Cons of XMPP
- XMPP is relatively slow.
- The XMPP system isn’t very effective when it comes to sending binary data.
What is Matrix protocol?
Matrix is another chat protocol you could consider for building your custom chat application. It’s an open standard for interoperable, decentralized, real-time communication over IP. It’s growing in popularity as an alternative to XMPP. It was recently added to Ejabberd.
Matrix messenger can be used to power instant messaging, IoT communication, VoIP/WebRTC signaling – anything that requires a standard HTTP API for publishing and subscribing to data while tracking conversation history.
When comparing XMPP vs Matrix, the latter will be a better choice for applications like Slack – those that support communication around organized groups or topical conversations.
Pros of Matrix protocol
End-to-end encryption
Matrix encrypts all chat and private room conversations with end-to-end encryption by default. This is a convenient feature that isn’t available in most XMPP servers, so when comparing Matrix vs XMPP in terms of end-to-end encryption, the former is superior.
Intuitive by default
Users would typically expect a message they receive to show up on all of their devices, not just the one that picks it up first. They also expect to be able to view the chat history when they install an application on a new device. The default settings in Matrix support exactly that: chat conversations powered by Matrix protocol work like entire chat histories that can be edited and synced by multiple people. That said, XMPP also allows you to achieve this, but it requires greater configuration efforts.
Decentralized architecture
Matrix works more like an email service, in that the messages can be intercepted by various clients, regardless of the application they are using. This basically eliminates the single point of control or failure.
Cons of Matrix protocol
- The rooms in Matrix are replicated over all participating servers – there is no focal point like there is in XMPP multi-user chat.
- Configuration options offered by Matrix are rather limited, especially when comparing Matrix vs XMPP – the latter is supported with a good command-line.
- With Matrix messaging, the conversation metadata is known to all servers (this includes information on the accounts that are involved and those that were made public).
What is MQTT (MQ Telemetry Transport) Protocol?
MQTT stands for MQ Telemetry Transport. It was formerly known as Message Queuing Telemetry Transport. It is a lightweight protocol that uses minimum CPU resources, so it’s best for building small, low-power chat apps.
It’s a well-established technology created in 1999 for machine-to-machine communication that works well in challenging environments, such as high latency, low bandwidth and unreliable networks. It is generally used in embedded environments.
The MQTT messaging architecture is based on a publish/subscribe pattern. Consequently, publishers and subscribers are decoupled, which means they don’t have to establish a direct connection, nor need to be present online at the same time, as long as messages and the server are configured for that.
MQTT is used by Whatsapp; Instagram also uses the protocol in its direct message functionality.
Pros of MQTT
Reliability
MQTT can transfer data even with unstable connections. It offers three Quality of Service (QoS) levels to support that.
Open and easy to use
A well-defined, standard documentation is one of MQTT’s greatest assets. It offers a set of ready-made libraries for Java, Python, C++,Java Script and other programming languages.
Cost-effective
The protocol is cheap and super easy to implement, thanks to the free available documentation.
Cons of MQTT
- This protocol relies on a centralized broker, which may limit scalability, so you should look into MQTT alternatives if scalability is your priority.
- A comparison of MQTT vs XMPP comes in favor of the latter when it comes to ready-to-use solutions for live chat building - XMPP offers more of those. It provides only the basic layer for sending messages or events (but that can also be an advantage, depending on your goals).
XMPP vs Matrix protocol
Both protocols have their strengths and are suitable for different use cases. XMPP is more established and has a wider range of extensions, making it versatile for various applications. Matrix, being newer, offers a more modern approach to decentralized communication with built-in features for contemporary use cases. Here’s a more specific overview of what to expect from XMPP vs Matrix:
- XMPP uses a federated client-server architecture, while Matrix employs a decentralized architecture with multiple servers that can communicate with each other.
- Both XMPP vs Matrix scale well, however, Matrix's decentralized architecture allows for better horizontal scalability, especially in large-scale deployments and XMPP may require more careful planning in very large installations.
- Matrix messaging is designed for persistent, synchronized data across multiple devices and servers. XMPP, while capable of message archiving, is primarily focused on real-time communication.
- Both XMPP vs Matrix are extensible, but XMPP has a longer history and a larger ecosystem of extensions (XEPs). Matrix is catching up with its own set of extensions and APIs.
- Matrix vs XMPP are quite close in terms of interoperability, making it easier to bridge with other communication protocols, but XMPP may require more custom development for certain integrations.
- XMPP generally has lower latency for real-time messaging due to its simpler architecture. Matrix's synchronization model can introduce some additional latency but offers better consistency across multiple devices and servers.
- XMPP is well-suited for real-time chat, presence, and IoT applications. Matrix messaging excels in scenarios requiring persistent, synchronized conversations across multiple platforms and devices, such as team collaboration tools.
XMPP vs MQTT Protocol
XMPP is more suited for complex, feature-rich communication systems, especially those involving human interaction. MQTT, on the other hand, excels in IoT and M2M scenarios where efficiency, low bandwidth, and low power consumption are crucial.
The choice between these protocols depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as the type of devices involved, network constraints, and the complexity of the communication patterns needed. Here’s what’s good to know when comparing XMPP vs MQTT:
- XMPP was originally designed for instant messaging and presence information, while MQTT was created for lightweight machine-to-machine (M2M) communication in IoT environments.
- MQTT has a significantly lower message overhead compared to XMPP. This makes MQTT more efficient for constrained devices and networks, especially in IoT scenarios where bandwidth and power consumption are critical factors.
- MQTT's publish-subscribe model allows for better scalability in scenarios with a large number of devices or clients. XMPP, while scalable, may require more server resources to handle a similar number of connections.
- MQTT provides three levels of QoS, allowing for flexible message delivery guarantees. XMPP doesn't have built-in QoS levels, although it can be implemented through extensions.
- Both XMPP vs MQTT support TLS encryption, but XMPP offers more advanced security features out of the box, including strong authentication mechanisms and end-to-end encryption.
- XMPP is highly extensible and can be adapted for various use cases beyond messaging. MQTT, while simpler, is more focused on its core functionality of efficient message transport.
Comparing XMPP vs Matrix and MQTT vs XMPP for chat app development projects
To pick the best chat protocol for your real-time messaging app, you need to start by reviewing your business objectives. If you want to benefit from the client-server architecture pattern or build an app like WhatsApp, opt for XMPP, as long as you won’t focus heavily on binary data.
If you are about to create an app like Slack or a system that will be powering group communication, you can benefit from Matrix messenger’s decentralized architecture that synchronizes conversation history within a room, not message passing.
If you want to implement your app fast to support machine-to-machine communication in challenging environments, MQTT will serve you well. It allows transmitting data effectively and is a good choice for networks that experience different levels of latency.
Making a choice between XMPP vs Matrix or XMPP vs MQTT certainly isn’t an easy one. If you’re still unsure about which protocol to select for your next chat application, contact us directly through this contact form and we’ll put you in touch with our chat application development experts who will help you make the best decision.
