Security or Sovereignty?
File sharing and secure communication are no longer just technical features, they are part of Europe’s critical infrastructure. That is why the debate about Zivver vs Msafe goes beyond tools and touches on sovereignty, compliance, and trust. Both platforms emerged as Dutch innovations, but today their paths have diverged sharply.
Zivver: A Dutch Success Story with a Foreign Ending
Zivver was founded in the Netherlands with the mission to make email and digital communication more secure. The company grew quickly, serving hospitals, municipalities, courts, and enterprises that needed to exchange sensitive information. Its promise of end-to-end encryption and zero-access guarantees made it an attractive alternative to standard email.
But in 2025, Zivver was acquired by Kiteworks, a U.S.-based company led by former Israeli intelligence officials. Overnight, a platform trusted with court documents, medical data, and government files became part of a foreign-owned entity.
Technically, the encryption still works. But ownership matters. Under U.S. law, Kiteworks can be compelled to provide access or metadata. And even if data stays encrypted, the trust of users is shaken. Courts and hospitals are now left wondering: Who really controls our most sensitive communications?
Msafe: Dutch-Born, European-Owned, Sovereign by Design
Msafe represents a different path. Founded and developed in the Netherlands, Msafe remains fully European-owned and independent. All servers are located within the EU, and no foreign investors or parent companies can interfere with governance. This ensures that sensitive data always falls under European law.
Where Zivver focuses on secure communication, Msafe specializes in secure file transfer for enterprises that cannot afford mistakes. The platform offers:
- End-to-end encryption as standard
- Two-factor authentication for all transfers
- Audit trails to prove compliance with GDPR, NIS2, and DORA
- Digital signatures for critical workflows
- Integrations with Outlook, Entra ID, and HR platforms
- No AI or hidden data processing
This makes Msafe particularly attractive for organizations in energy, manufacturing, government, and finance, where regulations demand full accountability.
Compliance vs. Confidence
It is true that both Zivver and Msafe provide encryption. But compliance is more than encryption. Regulators increasingly require proof: logs, audit trails, signatures, and governance. Msafe delivers this transparency out of the box, whereas Zivver’s foreign ownership creates a compliance grey zone.
Trust is equally important. Organizations need to know not just how their data is protected, but also by whom. Msafe’s independence ensures that European organizations remain in control of their own digital crown jewels.
The Bigger Picture: Europe’s Digital Independence
Zivver’s acquisition highlights a broader weakness: Europe repeatedly fails to protect its most promising security companies from foreign takeover. Millions are available through Dutch and European cybersecurity funds, but without protective strategies, innovation leaks abroad.
Msafe chooses a different route: growth from within Europe, for Europe, based on sovereignty, security, and trust.
Conclusion
Zivver and Msafe share Dutch roots, but their futures are no longer aligned.
- Zivver: strong technology, but foreign-owned and entangled in geopolitical risks.
- Msafe: Dutch, independent, fully European, designed for compliance and sovereignty.
For casual secure communication, Zivver may suffice. But for enterprises and critical sectors, where data sovereignty is non-negotiable, Msafe provides what Zivver no longer can: security, compliance, and trust that stay in Europe.
