European government agencies are increasingly seeking Microsoft Teams alternatives and secure messaging platforms due to data sovereignty concerns, GDPR compliance challenges, and the need for greater control over sensitive communications. This comprehensive guide compares leading government chat alternatives—including Rocket.Chat, Slack, Mattermost, and Element—across critical dimensions: sovereignty, security architecture, compliance capabilities, deployment flexibility, and total cost of ownership.
Key finding: open-source, self-hosted communication solutions offer European governments the sovereignty and security control that cloud-dependent collaboration tools cannot match. Whether you're facing regulatory pressure, security requirements, or simply evaluating Teams replacement options, this comparison provides the decision framework you need to choose the right secure messaging platform for your agency.
Why European governments are evaluating communication alternatives alongside Microsoft 365
Many European government agencies continue to rely on Microsoft Office 365 for productivity tools, and for good reason—the suite offers robust document management, email, and collaboration features. However, when it comes to real-time communication and messaging, some agencies are exploring complementary platforms that can integrate with their existing Microsoft infrastructure while offering additional sovereignty and security options.
The shift toward evaluating Microsoft Teams alternatives among European government agencies isn't happening in isolation. It's the result of mounting regulatory pressure, high-profile data transfer violations, and a broader awakening to the risks of digital dependency on US-based collaboration platforms for sensitive communications.
The reality is nuanced: most government bodies haven't yet migrated away from Microsoft Office or Teams. Adoption of secure communication alternatives varies significantly across Europe—some countries like Germany and the Netherlands are actively evaluating complementary messaging platforms, while others remain in early exploration phases. However, the general sentiment across European public sector organizations is clearly moving toward understanding options that can work alongside their existing Microsoft 365 deployments.
Microsoft has responded to these concerns with the introduction of its EU Data Boundary and Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty initiative, which promises to store and process EU customer data within Europe and provide greater transparency. While this represents progress, sovereignty advocates argue it doesn't fully resolve the fundamental issue: Microsoft remains a US company subject to US jurisdiction and the CLOUD Act, meaning the company could still be compelled to provide access to data regardless of where it's physically stored.
Multiple European countries including Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands are actively migrating government systems away from Microsoft Teams and Office, affecting hundreds of thousands of workstations.
In 2023, the Dutch government initiated a large-scale migration away from Microsoft products after the country's Data Protection Authority raised serious concerns about data transfers to the United States. The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued similar warnings, noting that Microsoft's data handling practices made it nearly impossible for public sector organizations to use Teams in compliance with GDPR.
According to research from the European Data Protection Board, many of EU member states have reported concerns about US cloud services and government access to data. The 2020 Schrems II ruling invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield framework, creating legal uncertainty that remains unresolved despite subsequent agreements.
But regulatory concerns tell only part of the story. European governments evaluating alternatives to Teams often cite three considerations:
Data sovereignty requirements. When government communications flow through Microsoft's infrastructure, agencies must rely on vendor assurances regarding data location and access controls. The US CLOUD Act enables American law enforcement to access data stored by US companies regardless of where it's physically located. For agencies with strict sovereignty mandates, self-hosted alternatives provide direct control that cloud services cannot match.
Integration flexibility. While Teams integrates deeply with the Microsoft 365 ecosystem, some agencies need communication tools that can also connect with non-Microsoft systems, legacy infrastructure, and specialized government applications. Open-source platforms often provide more flexible API and integration options.
Auditability for sensitive communications. While Teams offers enterprise security features, its closed-source architecture limits independent security verification. Government agencies handling classified information often require the ability to audit code, customize security controls, and deploy on air-gapped networks. For defense communication systems and sensitive government operations, open-source platforms enable verification that proprietary solutions cannot provide.
The European Commission's own digital sovereignty strategy emphasizes that "Europe must reduce its dependency on non-European technologies" and develop sovereign alternatives. This isn't anti-American sentiment—it's a pragmatic recognition that digital infrastructure is national infrastructure, and nations must control their critical systems.
Core requirements for government communication platforms
Not all communication platforms are created equal, and government requirements differ fundamentally from commercial deployments. Before comparing specific alternatives, agencies must understand the non-negotiable criteria that separate suitable platforms from inadequate ones.
Data sovereignty and residency
Data sovereignty means more than just storing data in EU data centers. It requires that data remains under the legal jurisdiction of EU law, not subject to extraterritorial access by foreign governments. A platform with EU data centers but US ownership and control fails this test.
True sovereign platforms offer:
- Complete data residency within EU borders
- Legal entities governed by EU law
- No forced data transfers to third countries
- Protection from foreign surveillance laws
- Full data portability and export capabilities
For government communication requirements, agencies should verify not just where data is stored, but who controls it, who can access it, and under what legal framework.
End-to-end encryption
While many platforms claim "encryption," few implement true end-to-end encryption (E2EE) where only the sender and recipient can decrypt messages. Platform providers should have zero access to message content, even if compelled by legal demands.
Government-grade encryption requires:
- Client-side encryption with no server-side keys
- Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)
- Independent cryptographic audits
- Transparent encryption implementation
- Option for air-gapped deployments
The difference matters enormously. Encryption in transit (HTTPS) protects data while moving between client and server, but the platform provider can still read messages. For sensitive government messaging, only E2EE provides adequate protection.
Compatibility with Microsoft 365 ecosystem
Most government agencies aren't looking to abandon Microsoft Office entirely. The ideal Teams alternative should integrate seamlessly with Microsoft 365, allowing agencies to maintain their productivity suite while gaining additional control over sensitive communications.
Key integration requirements include:
- Active Directory/Azure AD authentication: Single sign-on across platforms
- File storage integration: Connect with OneDrive, SharePoint, or alternative storage
- Calendar synchronization: Integration with Outlook calendars for meeting scheduling
- User provisioning: Automatic account creation based on AD groups
- Email notifications: Leverage existing Exchange infrastructure
Platforms like Rocket.Chat, Mattermost, and Element are designed to complement Microsoft 365 deployments, not replace them. This allows agencies to use Microsoft's productivity tools where they excel (documents, spreadsheets, presentations) while employing sovereign platforms for real-time communication and sensitive discussions.
Compliance frameworks
European government agencies must navigate an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. Platforms must support compliance with multiple overlapping frameworks:
- GDPR: Data protection, privacy by design, data subject rights
- NIS2 Directive: Cybersecurity requirements for critical infrastructure
- eIDAS 2.0: Digital identity and trust services
- National security classifications: Support for CONFIDENTIEL, SECRET, and higher classifications
Beyond checkbox compliance, platforms need built-in compliance features: audit logging, data retention controls, legal hold capabilities, and detailed compliance reporting.
Air-gapped deployment options
Some government communications are too sensitive for internet-connected systems. Intelligence services, military operations, and classified research require air-gapped collaboration platforms that operate on isolated networks with no external connectivity.
Suitable platforms must support:
- Complete offline operation
- On-premises deployment without cloud dependencies
- Manual update mechanisms
- Local user authentication
- Isolated data storage
This capability is non-negotiable for defense and intelligence applications, yet most commercial platforms—including Teams—cannot operate without internet connectivity.
Open source auditability
Closed-source platforms ask governments to trust but never verify. Open-source software allows independent security audits, enabling government security teams to review code, identify vulnerabilities, and verify that no backdoors exist.
The French government's digital sovereignty strategy explicitly requires that critical government software be open source and auditable. Germany's Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) recommends open-source platforms for government communications specifically because they enable security verification that proprietary platforms cannot provide.
Open source also protects against vendor abandonment. If a commercial vendor discontinues a product, closed-source software becomes unsupportable. Open-source platforms ensure long-term viability regardless of any single vendor's decisions.
Microsoft Teams alternatives comparison: detailed platform matrix
The following comparison evaluates five leading platforms across the criteria most critical to European government agencies. Ratings reflect capabilities as of early 2026.
Key observations
Sovereignty leaders: Rocket.Chat, Mattermost, and Element offer true data sovereignty through self-hosted deployment and open-source transparency. Teams and Slack remain fundamentally dependent on US infrastructure and legal jurisdiction.
Security architecture: Only Rocket.Chat and Element provide native end-to-end encryption without requiring plugins or workarounds. This matters enormously for secure team chat in government contexts.
Deployment flexibility: Air-gapped deployment capability separates platforms suitable for classified government work from those limited to standard enterprise use. Teams' cloud dependency makes it unsuitable for sensitive deployments.
Compliance posture: While all platforms claim GDPR compliance, only self-hosted open-source solutions provide the control required to definitively meet EU data protection requirements without relying on vendor assurances.
Teams replacement options: in-depth feature comparison
Data sovereignty and control: comparing government chat platforms
The sovereignty question goes beyond marketing claims to fundamental architecture. Where is the platform's legal entity based? Who controls the encryption keys? Can foreign governments compel data access?
Rocket.Chat offers the strongest sovereignty position for European governments seeking a Teams alternative. As an open-source platform with self-hosted deployment, agencies maintain complete control. Data never leaves government infrastructure, there are no cloud dependencies, and no foreign jurisdiction can compel access. The platform supports private clouds, on-premises data centers, and even air-gapped networks for classified communications.
.png)
Microsoft Teams serves many organizations effectively, but presents sovereignty considerations for government agencies with strict data control requirements. Despite EU data center options, Microsoft remains a US company subject to the CLOUD Act and NSA surveillance programs. The European Data Protection Supervisor has noted that Microsoft 365 services face challenges in fully aligning with EU data protection law given Microsoft's US legal obligations. Microsoft's September 2024 acknowledgment regarding US government access clarified these limitations for agencies evaluating sovereignty requirements.
Slack faces similar sovereignty challenges as Teams. Though owned by Salesforce, Slack remains subject to US jurisdiction and cannot guarantee protection from foreign government data requests. EU data residency options exist but don't resolve the fundamental legal control issue.
Mattermost and Element both offer strong sovereignty through self-hosted deployment and open-source architecture. Like Rocket.Chat, these platforms enable full government control over data, infrastructure, and access. The choice between them typically comes down to specific feature requirements and organizational preferences rather than sovereignty concerns.
Security architecture: evaluating secure messaging platforms
Security architecture determines whether a communication platform can meet government threat models and protect against sophisticated adversaries. Three factors matter most for Teams alternatives: encryption implementation, code auditability, and deployment isolation.
Encryption implementation for government messaging
Rocket.Chat implements end-to-end encryption natively using established cryptographic libraries. Messages are encrypted client-side before transmission, and only recipients hold decryption keys. The platform supports both E2EE for sensitive channels and standard encryption for operational communications where searchability and compliance logging matter more than perfect secrecy.
Element (Matrix protocol) pioneered E2EE for federated communications and remains the gold standard for cryptographic messaging among Teams alternatives. However, its complexity can create operational challenges for large government deployments.
Microsoft Teams offers encryption in transit and at rest, suitable for many business communications. However, it does not provide end-to-end encryption where the platform provider cannot access message content. Microsoft holds the encryption keys, meaning they can access messages if compelled by legal process. For agencies requiring encrypted messaging apps where even the provider cannot read content, this represents a different security model than E2EE platforms offer.
Code auditability
Open-source platforms enable independent security verification. Government security teams can audit code, conduct penetration testing, and verify that no backdoors exist. The German BSI and French ANSSI both recommend this approach for critical government systems.
Teams and Slack's closed-source architecture makes independent verification impossible. Governments must trust vendor security assurances without the ability to verify them. As NIST cybersecurity guidelines emphasize, "trust but verify" requires the ability to actually verify—something closed-source platforms prevent.
Deployment isolation
For classified communications, deployment isolation is mandatory. Rocket.Chat, Mattermost, and Element all support completely isolated deployments with no internet connectivity, no vendor telemetry, and no cloud dependencies. This enables military communication and intelligence applications where network isolation is non-negotiable.
Teams' architecture is optimized for cloud connectivity and requires internet access for core functionality. This design choice serves most organizations well but creates limitations for agencies requiring air-gapped deployments for classified work.
Compliance capabilities
Compliance isn't just about checking regulatory boxes. It requires built-in features that make compliance operationally feasible: audit logging, retention management, legal hold, data export, and compliance reporting.
Audit logging: All five platforms provide audit logs, but implementation quality varies. Rocket.Chat and Mattermost offer comprehensive logging that captures all system events, user actions, and administrative changes. These logs can feed into government SIEM systems for security monitoring and compliance reporting.
Teams provides audit logging through Microsoft 365's compliance center, but log retention and export capabilities depend on licensing tier. Standard government deployments often lack adequate logging without expensive E5 licenses.
Retention management: Government agencies face complex retention requirements. Some communications must be preserved for decades; others must be deleted after specific periods. Platforms need flexible retention policies that can vary by channel, user role, and content type.
Rocket.Chat's retention policies support automatic deletion, archival to cold storage, and legal hold overrides. For organizational security compliance, these granular controls are essential.
Data portability: GDPR requires that organizations can export all personal data in machine-readable format. Beyond legal compliance, data portability protects against vendor lock-in and enables migration to alternative platforms.
Open-source platforms excel here because their data formats are documented and accessible. Proprietary platforms often use opaque formats that make migration deliberately difficult.
Compliance reporting: According to research from Forrester, compliance reporting consumes significant IT resources in government agencies. Platforms that automate compliance reports reduce administrative burden and improve audit outcomes.
Deployment flexibility
Government agencies have vastly different deployment requirements. A municipal government might use cloud hosting, while a defense ministry requires air-gapped on-premises deployment. The right platform supports both.
Cloud deployment: All five platforms offer cloud deployment, but sovereignty implications differ dramatically. Rocket.Chat, Mattermost, and Element can be deployed in sovereign European cloud providers like OVHcloud or Scaleway, keeping data under EU jurisdiction. Teams and Slack cloud deployments remain under US legal control regardless of physical data location.
On-premises deployment: Rocket.Chat, Mattermost, and Element all support full on-premises deployment with no cloud dependencies. Organizations control everything: hardware, software, data, and access.
Teams offers on-premises deployment through Skype for Business Server, but Microsoft has indicated this product is being phased out in favor of cloud-only Teams. This strategic direction conflicts with government sovereignty requirements.
Hybrid deployment: Some agencies need hybrid architectures where different departments use different deployment models based on security requirements. Rocket.Chat supports hybrid deployment where sensitive channels run on-premises while general communications use cloud hosting. This flexibility enables agencies to optimize security and cost across different use cases.
Air-gapped deployment: For classified government work, air-gapped deployment is mandatory. Rocket.Chat, Mattermost, and Element all support completely isolated operation with manual update mechanisms and offline operation. Teams' cloud architecture makes air-gapped deployment impossible.
Total cost of ownership
Platform costs extend far beyond licensing fees. A comprehensive cost comparison must include implementation, training, ongoing administration, integration development, and migration costs.
Licensing costs: Teams appears cost-effective because it's bundled with Microsoft 365 subscriptions many agencies already have. However, this bundling creates hidden costs. Agencies that want to migrate away from Teams must either maintain Microsoft 365 subscriptions (paying for software they don't use) or face expensive data migration.
Rocket.Chat and Mattermost offer transparent per-user licensing for enterprise features, with unlimited users for self-hosted deployments using the free community edition. For large government deployments, this often proves significantly less expensive than proprietary alternatives.
According to analysis from Gartner, total cost of ownership for self-hosted open-source platforms is typically lower than equivalent proprietary solutions over five years, primarily due to avoiding vendor lock-in and licensing escalation.
Implementation costs: Self-hosted platforms require more upfront implementation work than cloud services. Agencies must provision infrastructure, configure integrations, and train administrators. However, this upfront investment provides long-term benefits: complete control, no vendor dependency, and predictable costs.
Cloud platforms like Teams and Slack minimize implementation effort but create ongoing dependency and provide less control over the environment.
Migration costs: Switching platforms is expensive. Teams' integration with Microsoft 365 makes migration particularly costly because workflows, bots, and integrations must be rebuilt. Agencies should consider migration costs when initially selecting a platform—choosing a platform with open standards and data portability reduces future switching costs.
Hidden costs: Proprietary platforms have hidden costs that emerge over time: licensing audits, mandatory upgrades, feature paywalls, and integration limitations. These costs aren't apparent during initial selection but accumulate significantly.
Implementing a Teams alternative: planning and integration guide
Many government agencies adopt a complementary approach rather than full replacement—using Microsoft 365 for productivity tools while deploying sovereign platforms for sensitive communications. This section covers both integration and migration scenarios.
Data migration strategy
Step 1: Audit existing data. Before migration, understand what you're migrating: message history, files, channels, user accounts, permissions, and integrations. Teams exports data in proprietary formats that require conversion.
Step 2: Prioritize data. Not all data needs migration. Focus on active channels, recent history, and critical files. Archiving old Teams data for compliance while migrating only active content reduces migration complexity.
Step 3: Map data structures. Teams channels don't always map directly to alternative platform structures. Plan how Teams, channels, and private messages will be organized in the new platform.
Step 4: Execute migration. Use migration tools where available or develop custom scripts for data conversion. For instant messaging platforms, phased migration often works better than "big bang" cutover.
Integration replacement
Teams integrates deeply with Microsoft 365. Agencies must identify and replace these integrations:
- Calendar integration: Replace with open standards like CalDAV
- File storage: Migrate from OneDrive/SharePoint to alternative storage
- Authentication: Configure SSO with SAML or OAuth
- Bots and automation: Rebuild using new platform APIs
Rocket.Chat's extensive API and webhook support enables most Teams integrations to be replicated, though implementation effort varies by complexity.
User adoption and training
Technical migration is the easy part. User adoption determines success. Digital transformation failures often result from user resistance, not technical issues.
Effective adoption strategies:
- Early involvement: Include users in platform selection and testing
- Clear communication: Explain why the change is necessary and how it benefits them
- Comprehensive training: Provide hands-on training, documentation, and ongoing support
- Champion program: Identify enthusiastic early adopters to help peers
- Gradual rollout: Pilot with friendly user groups before full deployment
For government chat platforms, emphasizing security and sovereignty benefits often resonates with users who understand why protecting government communications matters.
Timeline and resource requirements
Realistic migration timelines for government agencies:
Small deployment (under 500 users): 3-6 months
- 1 month: Planning and vendor selection
- 1 month: Infrastructure setup and testing
- 1 month: Pilot deployment
- 2-3 months: Phased rollout and stabilization
Medium deployment (500-5000 users): 6-12 months
- 2 months: Planning, vendor selection, architecture design
- 2 months: Infrastructure deployment and integration development
- 2 months: Pilot and refinement
- 4-6 months: Phased rollout across departments
Large deployment (over 5000 users): 12-24 months
- 3-4 months: Comprehensive planning and architecture
- 3-4 months: Infrastructure and integration development
- 2-3 months: Extended pilot across multiple departments
- 4-12 months: Phased organizational rollout
Resource requirements typically include: project manager, system administrators, integration developers, security specialist, training coordinator, and user support staff.
Risk mitigation
Every migration carries risks. Proactive risk management prevents surprises:
Technical risks:
- Data loss during migration → Test migration process thoroughly, maintain backups
- Integration failures → Identify critical integrations early, allocate development time
- Performance issues → Load test before production deployment
- Security vulnerabilities → Conduct security assessment before deployment
Organizational risks:
- User resistance → Invest in change management and training
- Productivity disruption → Phase rollout to minimize impact
- Executive skepticism → Demonstrate clear ROI and sovereignty benefits
- Resource constraints → Secure adequate budget and staffing before starting
Agencies should maintain Teams access for at least 90 days after migration completion to provide fallback capability if critical issues emerge.
The hybrid approach: combining Microsoft 365 with sovereign communication
Many European government agencies adopt a pragmatic hybrid strategy that leverages the strengths of both Microsoft and sovereign platforms:
Microsoft Office 365 for:
- Document creation and editing (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
- Email and calendar (Outlook, Exchange)
- File storage and collaboration (OneDrive, SharePoint)
- Video meetings for non-sensitive discussions
Sovereign communication platform (like Rocket.Chat) for:
- Real-time messaging and team collaboration
- Sensitive discussions requiring E2EE
- Classified communications
- Air-gapped network deployments
- Mission-critical communications requiring full data control
Benefits of the hybrid approach
This strategy allows agencies to:
Maintain productivity investments. Staff continue using familiar Microsoft tools for document work, email, and scheduling. Training requirements focus only on the messaging platform, not the entire productivity suite.
Achieve sovereignty where it matters most. By moving real-time communications to sovereign platforms while keeping productivity tools on Microsoft 365, agencies gain control over their most sensitive data flows without disrupting document workflows.
Phase implementation gradually. Rather than a disruptive "big bang" migration, agencies can introduce sovereign messaging alongside existing tools, allowing users to adapt naturally.
Integrate through common standards. Both systems authenticate against the same Active Directory, share file storage, and integrate calendars, creating a unified user experience despite different underlying platforms.
Example hybrid architecture
A typical government deployment might look like:
User experience:
- Staff log in once (SSO via Active Directory)
- Use Outlook for email and calendar
- Use Word/Excel/PowerPoint for documents
- Use Rocket.Chat for instant messaging, team channels, and sensitive discussions
- Rocket.Chat notifications integrate with Outlook calendar
- Files shared in Rocket.Chat can be stored in sovereign storage or existing SharePoint
Infrastructure:
- Microsoft 365 hosted in Microsoft's EU data centers
- Rocket.Chat self-hosted on government infrastructure or EU sovereign cloud
- Active Directory remains authoritative source for users and groups
- Both platforms connect to shared file storage options
Governance:
- Microsoft 365 for general business communications and documents
- Rocket.Chat for sensitive communications requiring sovereignty
- Clear policies define which platform for which use cases
- Audit logs from both systems feed into central SIEM
This approach recognizes that Microsoft excels at productivity software while sovereign platforms provide the control needed for sensitive government communications. Rather than an either/or decision, agencies can strategically deploy each platform where it provides maximum value.
Choosing the right Teams alternative: government decision framework
Selecting the right Microsoft Teams replacement requires structured evaluation. This framework guides government agencies through the decision process for choosing secure collaboration tools.
Step 1: Define requirements
Start by documenting your agency's specific requirements:
Mandatory requirements (must have):
- Data sovereignty requirements
- Security classification support
- Specific compliance frameworks
- Integration needs
- User count and growth projections
Important requirements (strongly desired):
- Deployment preferences (cloud, on-premises, hybrid)
- Budget constraints
- Existing technology stack compatibility
- User experience expectations
Nice-to-have requirements (beneficial but not critical):
- Advanced features
- Specific integrations
- Customization capabilities
Step 2: Evaluate alternatives
Score each platform against your requirements. Use this criteria:
- data sovereignty
- security architecture
- compliance capabilities
- deployment flexibility
- total cost of ownership
- user experience
- integration ecosystem
- vendor stability
Adjust weights based on your priorities. For agencies prioritizing sovereignty and security, those criteria should carry more weight than user experience polish.
Step 3: Conduct proof of concept
Don't rely on vendor demonstrations. Test platforms in your environment with your users and your integrations.
POC testing should include:
- Deploy platform in test environment
- Configure key integrations
- Test with representative user group (20-50 users)
- Evaluate performance under realistic load
- Assess administrative burden
- Validate compliance capabilities
- Review security posture
Allow at least 4-6 weeks for meaningful POC evaluation. Quick demos don't reveal operational challenges that emerge with real-world use.
Step 4: Calculate total cost
Build a comprehensive 5-year cost model including:
Direct costs:
- Licensing fees (per user, per year)
- Infrastructure (cloud hosting or on-premises hardware)
- Implementation services
- Training and change management
- Ongoing support
Indirect costs:
- Internal staff time for administration
- Integration development and maintenance
- Future migration costs if switching platforms
- Opportunity cost of vendor lock-in
Many agencies discover that apparently expensive self-hosted platforms provide better value than "free" bundled services once hidden costs are included.
Step 5: Make decision
Synthesize your evaluation into a clear recommendation that addresses:
- How well each platform meets requirements
- Total cost comparison
- Risk assessment for each option
- Migration complexity and timeline
- Long-term strategic implications
Recommendation format: "We recommend [Platform] because it provides [specific benefits] that are critical to our [sovereignty/security/compliance] requirements. While [alternative] offers [specific advantages], it cannot meet our mandatory requirement for [specific capability]. Total cost over five years is estimated at [amount], with migration completing by [timeline]."
Key questions to ask vendors
Don't accept marketing answers. Probe for specifics:
About sovereignty:
- "What is your company's country of incorporation?"
- "Can you guarantee data will never transit US infrastructure?"
- "What happens if the US government issues a data request?"
- "Do you have any contractual obligations that would require you to share data?"
About security:
- "Can we audit your source code?"
- "Who holds encryption keys in your E2EE implementation?"
- "Have you undergone independent security audits? Can we see the reports?"
- "What data can your employees access?"
About compliance:
- "How do you help us comply with [specific regulation]?"
- "Can you provide detailed data flow diagrams?"
- "What compliance certifications do you hold?"
- "How do you handle data subject access requests?"
About lock-in:
- "Can we export all our data in standard formats?"
- "What happens to our data if we cancel our subscription?"
- "Are there any features that would prevent us from migrating to a competitor?"
Evasive or vague answers should raise red flags. Platforms that respect customer sovereignty provide clear, direct answers to these questions.
Frequently asked questions about <anything>
- Digital sovereignty
- Federation capabilities
- Scalable and white-labeled
- Highly scalable and secure
- Full patient conversation history
- HIPAA-ready
for mission-critical operations
- On-premise and air-gapped ready
- Full control over sensitive data
- Secure cross-agency collaboration
%201.svg)
- Open source code
- Highly secure and scalable
- Unmatched flexibility
- End-to-end encryption
- Cloud or on-prem deployment
- Supports compliance with HIPAA, GDPR, FINRA, and more
- Supports compliance with HIPAA, GDPR, FINRA, and more
- Highly secure and flexible
- On-prem or cloud deployment
