Quick Navigation
- The Draft
- The Case Against Custom Chat Interfaces
- The Case FOR Custom Chat Interfaces
- The Alternatives You Should Consider First
- The Build vs. Buy Decision Framework
- What Success Looks Like
- The Security Reality Check
- The Bottom Line
Let me start with the controversial take: most organizations that build custom chat interfaces are wasting time and money.
But some aren't.
The question is: which category are you in?
The Case Against Custom Chat Interfaces
Here's the default position: don't build your own.
Why?
Because Claude.ai exists. ChatGPT exists. Gemini exists. These are world-class interfaces built by teams of hundreds of engineers with millions in funding.
Your three-person internal team is not going to build something better in three months.
And even if you could, you shouldn't. Because building the interface is not your competitive advantage.
What you're actually building:
- Text input/output UI (solved problem)
- Conversation history management (solved problem)
- File upload handling (solved problem)
- Authentication and user management (solved problem, many times over)
- Markdown rendering (solved problem)
- Mobile responsiveness (solved problem)
None of this differentiates your organization. None of this makes your employees more productive in a way that competitors can't replicate by just... using the same third-party interface.
So why are you building it?
The common (bad) reasons:
1. "We want control"
- Control of what? The UI? That's not where the value is.
- The models are still external (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google)
- You've built a thin wrapper and called it "control"
2. "We want to customize the experience"
- What customization actually matters?
- Custom branding? That's vanity, not value.
- Custom workflows? Maybe, but most orgs don't have unique workflows that can't be handled by prompts.
3. "We don't trust third-party interfaces"
- Fair, but have you actually evaluated the security of ChatGPT Enterprise or Claude for Work?
- Are your concerns addressable through contracts and BAAs?
- Is your custom build actually more secure, or does it just feel more secure?
4. "We want to integrate with our internal systems"
- This is the closest to a legitimate reason, but even here: MCPs exist (Model Context Protocols).
- You don't need a custom interface to integrate with internal data. You need an MCP server.
The cautionary tales:
Consider Samsung's experience in 2023. Employees leaked sensitive company data to ChatGPT on at least three occasions: source code from semiconductor databases, code from defective equipment, and entire meeting transcripts. Samsung's response? They initially banned generative AI tools entirely, developed an in-house solution, then later re-enabled ChatGPT with enhanced security controls.
Or look at the ROI challenge: only 30% of companies implementing AI achieve measurable ROI, according to recent market research. The reality is that most organizations would be better off focusing their engineering resources on domain-specific problems rather than rebuilding commodity infrastructure.
The Case FOR Custom Chat Interfaces
Okay, now let's flip it.
There are legitimate reasons to build your own. But they're narrow and specific.
Reason 1: Governance Requirements That Third Parties Can't Meet
Some organizations have compliance requirements that are genuinely incompatible with third-party services.
Examples:
- Government/Defense: Data cannot leave controlled environments under any circumstances
- Healthcare: HIPAA compliance with specific data residency requirements that no vendor supports
- Finance: Regulatory frameworks that prohibit certain types of data transmission
What's actually available from enterprise providers:
Before you commit to custom, understand what third-party solutions now offer:
- ChatGPT Enterprise and Claude for Work both provide SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA (via BAA), and GDPR compliance
- Data encryption in transit and at rest (AES-256)
- SSO integration, role-based access controls, audit logs
- Data Processing Addendums (DPA) and guarantees that your data won't be used for training
What they DON'T offer (yet):
- True on-premise deployment (though Google Gemini on Google Distributed Cloud is coming in Q3 2025 public preview)
- Custom encryption frameworks beyond industry standards
- Deployment in arbitrary geographic locations for highly specific data residency needs
If you're in this category, you're not choosing between "custom interface" and "third-party interface."
You're choosing between "custom interface with approved models" and "no AI at all."
That's a different calculation.
Reason 2: Deep Integration with Proprietary Systems
If your AI needs to interact with internal systems in ways that require custom orchestration, a custom interface might make sense.
Example use case:
- AI needs to query 10 different internal databases
- Apply proprietary business logic to results
- Trigger internal workflows based on AI responses
- All within a single conversation flow
This isn't just "connect to our CRM." This is "orchestrate complex multi-system interactions that are unique to our business."
Model Context Protocols can handle much of this, but there's a threshold where the orchestration logic is so complex that you need a custom client.
The test: If you can describe your integration needs in a 2-page document, you probably don't need a custom interface. If it takes 20 pages to describe the orchestration logic, maybe you do.
Reason 3: Novel UI/UX That Genuinely Improves Workflows
Most "custom experiences" are just vanity. But some are genuinely valuable.
Example:
- Medical diagnosis interface where AI responses are structured into specific clinical decision support fields
- Legal research interface where AI output maps directly to case law databases and citation formats
- Engineering design tool where AI generates code that feeds directly into simulation environments
These aren't just chat boxes. They're domain-specific applications where AI is one component of a larger workflow.
If you're building this, you're not building a "custom chat interface." You're building a domain-specific application that happens to use AI.
That's fine. That's potentially valuable.
But don't confuse that with "we want a chat UI with our logo on it."
Reason 4: Experimentation and Learning
If you're a tech organization and you want your engineers to deeply understand how AI systems work, building a custom interface can be a learning exercise.
But be honest about what this is: education, not production infrastructure.
The developer landscape has shifted:
A 2024 survey of 6,028 programmers found that 75.8% now use AI to enhance workflows, with ChatGPT being the dominant tool (90% usage). Teams report delivering features 2.3x faster with AI assistance. But there's a catch: developers spend 40% more time on system design and code reviews.
The shift is also structural. Junior frontend developers now represent only 10.1% of the workforce, down significantly, because AI automates many tasks previously handled by junior developers. This means you need senior talent who can work effectively with AI tools (not cheap).
Build it. Learn from it. Then evaluate whether you should actually deploy it or just use Claude/ChatGPT for production.
The Alternatives You Should Consider First
Before building custom, exhaust these options:
Option 1: Enterprise SaaS Chat Interfaces
- ChatGPT Enterprise (OpenAI)
- Claude for Work (Anthropic)
- Gemini for Business (Google)
What they offer:
- SOC2, HIPAA, GDPR compliance
- Data privacy guarantees (your data isn't used for training)
- SSO integration
- Admin controls and usage monitoring
- SLAs and support
What they DON'T offer:
- Deep integration with your internal systems (beyond basic APIs)
- Custom UI/UX tailored to your workflows
- On-premise deployment (mostly; some vendors offer private cloud)
Pricing comparison (2024-2025):
| Provider | Team/Standard | Enterprise |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | $25-30/user/month | $30-60/user/month (150+ seats) |
| Claude | $25/user/month | $60+/user/month (70-user minimum) |
| Microsoft 365 Copilot | N/A | $30/user/month (requires M365 base subscription) |
| Google Gemini for Workspace | Included FREE | Included FREE (major 2025 shift) |
| Perplexity Enterprise Pro | $40/user/month | $325/user/month (Max tier) |
Notable shift: Google now includes Gemini at no extra charge with Business and Enterprise Workspace tiers, a significant competitive move that changes the economics for many organizations.
For 80% of organizations, one of these is the right answer.
Option 2: Open-Source Chat Interfaces
- LibreChat (multi-model support, self-hosted)
- Jan (local AI interface, privacy-focused)
- Chatbot UI (open-source, customizable)
Pros:
- Full control over deployment
- No per-user fees
- Customizable (you have the code)
- Active development communities
Cons:
- You own the maintenance burden
- Security is your responsibility
- No vendor support
This is the middle ground: you get customization without building from scratch, but you take on operational responsibility.
Option 3: API Integration Without Custom UI
Use existing chat interfaces (Slack, Teams, existing collaboration tools) and integrate AI via APIs.
Example:
- Deploy a Slack bot that uses Claude API
- Users interact via Slack (familiar interface)
- Your integration handles governance, logging, MCP connections
Pros:
- No new UI to build or maintain
- Users already know Slack/Teams
- Easy to deploy and iterate
Cons:
- Limited UI customization
- Dependent on Slack/Teams platform
- May not support complex workflows
This works for many organizations, especially if AI is a productivity tool, not a core product feature.
The Build vs. Buy Decision Framework
If you're seriously considering building a custom interface, use this framework:
Step 1: Define What "Custom" Actually Means
Be specific. What features require custom development that you can't get elsewhere?
Example bad answer: "We want a chat interface that works with Claude and stores our data securely."
- This exists. It's called Claude for Work.
Example good answer: "We need an interface that lets radiologists interact with AI while viewing DICOM images, with AI output structured into HL7 FHIR formats for automatic EHR integration."
- This is genuinely custom. No off-the-shelf product does this.
If you can't articulate a genuinely unique requirement, don't build custom.
Step 2: Calculate True Cost
Custom development isn't just initial build. It's:
Year 1:
- Design and planning: 2-4 weeks
- Initial development: 8-16 weeks (depending on complexity)
- Security review and hardening: 2-4 weeks
- User testing and iteration: 4-6 weeks
- Deployment and training: 2-4 weeks
Ongoing:
- Maintenance (bug fixes, updates): 10-20% of initial dev time, annually
- Feature requests: Expect users to want improvements (this never stops)
- Security patches: Ongoing responsibility
- Model API changes: When OpenAI/Anthropic change APIs, you update your integration
Team cost estimate:
- 2-3 full-time engineers for 6-12 months (initial build)
- 0.5-1 engineer ongoing (maintenance and enhancements)
At fully-loaded cost of $150K-200K per engineer, that's $300K-600K year one, $75K-200K per year ongoing.
Alternative cost:
- ChatGPT Enterprise: ~$60/user/month
- For 100 users: $72K/year
You're spending 4-8x more to build custom, and you own all the risk.
Is the value genuinely 4-8x better?
When custom makes financial sense:
The break-even point exists, but it's high. Organizations processing 500 million+ tokens monthly can see 50-70% cost reductions with on-premise deployments, achieving break-even in 12-18 months. But most organizations aren't operating at that scale.
Step 3: Assess Organizational Capability
Be brutally honest:
- Do you have engineers with experience building production chat interfaces?
- Do you have security expertise to harden this properly?
- Do you have design resources to make this usable?
- Do you have ongoing capacity to maintain this long-term?
If the answer to any of these is "no," your custom interface will likely be worse than commercial alternatives.
Step 4: Evaluate Exit Strategy
If you build custom and it doesn't work out, can you migrate to a commercial product easily?
- Is your data in portable formats?
- Are your integrations modular enough to reuse?
- Have you avoided lock-in to your own custom solution?
If you can't exit gracefully, you've created a new silo. (Siloed Information)
What Success Looks Like
If you do build custom, here's what good looks like:
Clear differentiation: The interface enables workflows that competitors can't replicate with off-the-shelf tools.
Real-world success cases:
- Klarna: Built a ChatGPT-powered shopping assistant directly into their app, enabling personalized product recommendations that integrate deeply with their e-commerce platform.
- Amazon Rufus: Custom AI shopping assistant that surfaces pricing context during product searches, a capability that requires tight integration with Amazon's proprietary systems.
- Slack (Salesforce): Custom AI integration showed knowledge workers saving 97 minutes per week, measurable productivity gains that justified the investment.
- Availity (Healthcare): Integrated AI into developer workflows, with 33% of new code now auto-generated, clear ROI on custom tooling.
What made them successful:
- Deep integration with proprietary systems that third parties can't access
- Measurable productivity gains or revenue impact
- Workflows genuinely unique to their business
- Scale that justifies custom development costs
Modular architecture: The UI is separate from integrations. You can swap out the chat interface without rebuilding everything else.
Measurable ROI: You can point to specific productivity gains or capabilities that justify the investment.
Sustainable maintenance: You have dedicated engineering capacity to maintain this long-term, not "we'll figure it out."
User adoption: Employees actually use it. If you build it and adoption is <30%, you've wasted money.
The Security Reality Check
Before you build custom for "security reasons," understand the current threat landscape:
Recent incidents that justify governance concerns:
- 143,000 public conversations with Claude, Copilot, and ChatGPT found on Archive.org by security researchers (2024-2025). Users were sharing conversations publicly without understanding privacy risks.
- 50% of enterprise employees now use generative AI at work, with 77% of interactions involving real company data. Yet 67% of ChatGPT access happens through unmanaged personal accounts, not corporate SSO.
- Wall Street's response: In February 2023, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, and Wells Fargo all banned ChatGPT due to concerns about sensitive client information and regulatory scrutiny.
- Legal liability precedent: Air Canada was found liable when their chatbot provided incorrect information about bereavement fares. The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that companies cannot dissociate from AI tool actions, establishing that organizations are fully responsible for what their AI says.
The problem isn't just the technology. It's user behavior and organizational governance.
SSO adoption reality: Despite enterprise chat interfaces offering SSO integration, adoption is effectively zero. Employees continue using personal accounts even when corporate logins are available.
Custom interfaces don't solve this problem unless you also solve the organizational behavior problem. And if you can solve the behavior problem, enterprise SaaS with proper controls might be sufficient.
The Bottom Line
Custom chat interfaces are rarely the right answer.
But when they are, they're very right.
The key is intellectual honesty: are you solving a real problem that third-party solutions can't address, or are you building because it feels like "control"?
Most organizations would be better served by:
- Using ChatGPT Enterprise or Claude for Work for general use
- Building MCP servers to integrate with internal data (Model Context Protocols)
- Investing engineering time in domain-specific applications, not reinventing chat UIs
But if you're in the 10% of cases where custom genuinely makes sense, do it well. Don't half-ass it.
Related Posts: