EasyCoexistence vs respond.io

What it costs to run

Priced on different units, as published in September 2026.

respond.io: From US$ 79 per month for five users and 1,000 monthly active contacts, up to US$ 279. The bill follows how many people answer and how many customers you reach.

EasyCoexistence: US$ 9 per connected number per month, one tier, no user or contact limits. The bill follows how many numbers you hold, which is the number an agency actually controls.

Where conversation content lives

A consequence of selling an inbox rather than a connection.

respond.io: On their platform, which a team inbox requires in order to show history. Their pricing page does not detail retention, which is worth asking about if it matters to you.

EasyCoexistence: Nowhere on our side. The webhook override sends message events from Meta straight to your endpoint, and anything arriving at our fallback is dropped unpersisted.

What sits between you and Meta

The question that decides this for anyone building software.

respond.io: Their platform. You integrate against their abstraction, their rate limits, their webhook shape and their release schedule, and what you build is portable only as far as they allow.

EasyCoexistence: Nothing. The API is Meta's own, documented by Meta, and the webhook goes to your endpoint. There is nothing of ours to build against, which is also what makes leaving possible.

What watches the connection

Rarely on any pricing page, and the reason this product exists at all.

respond.io: Not something their pricing page addresses, and it would be wrong to assert an answer. If you hold client numbers, ask specifically what happens when a connection silently drops.

EasyCoexistence: Quality rating, messaging tier and throughput polled on a schedule. Meta's account events handled by name. Two credentials held so a revoked token is not mistaken for a lost number. The webhook override reapplied after a reconnection removes it.

When respond.io is the better choice

Stated plainly, because a comparison that pretends otherwise is not worth reading.

respond.io: When you want the platform. Their published plans include team and custom inboxes, workflows, broadcasts, AI agents, reporting, and on higher tiers SSO and multiple workspaces. It is multichannel rather than WhatsApp only.

EasyCoexistence: None of that exists here and none of it is planned. This is one number, one connection, eleven MCP tools and a webhook.

Which one to choose

If you want a finished product to work inside, theirs is more complete than ours will ever be, and this page is not going to argue with that.

But if you are the one building the interface, a platform is a competitor sitting in your own stack. You pay per seat for inboxes your users never see, per contact for conversations your product already handles, and you integrate against an abstraction instead of the API Meta documents.

EasyCoexistence is the layer underneath: a flat fee per number, the webhook pointed at your system, and somebody watching the connection so a silent failure does not become a lost customer.

Keep reading

• EasyCoexistence vs WATIWATI is a shared team inbox priced per user. EasyCoexistence is a connection priced per number. Which one you need depends on whether you have a team or a system.
• 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 Coexistence: the app and the API on one numberCoexistence runs the WhatsApp Business app and the Cloud API on the same number at once. What it changes, what it does not, and how a number gets connected.