Are these really the same architecture?

On the message path, yes. Both use Meta's ability to override where a WhatsApp Business Account delivers its webhooks, so conversation content goes to your server rather than through a provider.

Where is Dualhook better?

Documentation breadth, clearly. They have over a hundred pages covering the Meta platform in depth, and a thirteen day inactivity warning with countdowns and reminders that is a well designed answer to that problem.

Where does EasyCoexistence differ?

An MCP connector with eleven tools, which their documentation does not describe, and reapplying the webhook override automatically after a reconnection removes it.

It is sourced and dated, and it names where they are ahead. Read their own site before deciding: a comparison written by one side is evidence, not a verdict.

EasyCoexistence vs Dualhook

Both are Coexistence providers with the same core architecture: the WhatsApp Business app keeps working, and message webhooks go from Meta straight to your server rather than through the provider. The differences are narrower than the similarities and worth knowing.

What both products are

This is the closest comparison on the site, because the positioning is nearly the same.

Dualhook: A Coexistence provider with the same core promise: keep the WhatsApp Business app working, route message webhooks directly from Meta to your server rather than storing them. Their documentation describes this as Webhook Override.

EasyCoexistence: The same mechanism, under the same name Meta uses. We set override_callback_uri on our app's subscription to the WhatsApp Business Account, which moves the message path fields to your endpoint while we keep the operational ones.

Where messages go

Both route directly. The difference is what happens to the events that are not routed.

Dualhook: Direct Meta routing with no message storage, which their site states plainly and which is the same architecture we use.

EasyCoexistence: Same routing. What we can add is what happens on the fallback path: an account with no override set delivers to our default callback, where the handler drops those events without persisting. The claim is enforced in code rather than stated in a policy.

The fourteen day inactivity rule

Meta disconnects a Coexistence connection after roughly fourteen days without activity on the primary device. Both products address it differently.

Dualhook: Their documentation describes warning at thirteen days as a conservative safety margin, with countdowns, reminder emails and confirmed check-ins. That is a well designed answer to the problem.

EasyCoexistence: We watch for the disconnection itself and read Meta's reason field, which distinguishes PRIMARY_INACTIVITY from BUSINESS_DOWNGRADE, CHANGE_NUMBER and the rest. The reason is what separates a fortnight of quiet from a customer who actually left.

What a reconnection breaks

The consequence of the inactivity rule that costs the most, and the one worth asking any provider about.

Dualhook: Their documentation does not address what happens to a webhook override after a reconnection. That is not evidence they do not handle it, and it is the question worth putting to them directly.

EasyCoexistence: A removal uninstalls the app from the account and the override goes with it, so reconnecting restores sending and monitoring while delivery to your server silently does not. We reapply it on every reconnection, because this happened to a real number that came back clean and stopped delivering.

Documentation

Where they are clearly ahead, and it is not close.

Dualhook: Over a hundred documentation pages covering the Meta platform, templates, webhook fields, flows and error codes, organised into a navigable tree. It is the most complete public documentation in this category.

EasyCoexistence: Under forty, organised the same way and growing. Ours covers what our own product does and the errors our users actually meet, written from our source. On breadth they win today.

The MCP connector

Where we are ahead, for a specific audience.

Dualhook: Their documentation does not describe an MCP server. Their product is reached through its API and dashboard.

EasyCoexistence: Eleven tools over a remote MCP server with OAuth, so Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and Claude Code can list numbers, check health, send messages and templates, and set webhook destinations. For an agency onboarding clients from an assistant, that is the difference.

Keep reading

EasyCoexistence vs 360dialogBoth charge per number and neither marks up Meta's fees. The difference is the price and what the fee is for. Prices as published in September 2026.
EasyCoexistence vs a BSP inboxA BSP gives you a shared inbox and sits in the message path. Coexistence keeps the phone and routes messages to your own systems. When each one is right.
WhatsApp MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT and CursorConnect Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor to a real WhatsApp number over MCP. Official Cloud API, eleven tools, no linked-device workaround and no ban risk.
WhatsApp webhooks: routing messages straight to your serverHow WhatsApp webhooks work, what Meta sends, and how to route incoming messages directly to your own endpoint instead of through a provider's platform.

Ready to get started?

Set up WhatsApp Coexistence in minutes, not months. The app keeps working on the phone.

Start Free TrialNothing charged for 7 days. Cancel anytime.