What WhatsApp Coexistence costs, provider by provider

Why are the headline prices not comparable?

Because they are charging for different things, and the unit decides which shape of business each one suits.

Per number pricing follows how many WhatsApp lines you hold. It is the unit an agency actually controls, and it is what EasyCoexistence, 360dialog and Dualhook use.

Per seat and per contact pricing follows how many people answer and how many customers you talk to. That is what WATI and respond.io use, and it is the right unit when a team of agents is the product being bought.

Per message pricing follows volume alone, which is Twilio's model: no platform fee and no per number fee, but a charge on every message on top of what Meta bills.

So the only honest comparison is at a stated number of connections, which is what the table below does.

What do the platform priced providers cost at the same counts?

They cannot be put in the same column honestly, because their fee does not move with number count at all. What moves is seats and contacts.

WATI's published plans run from three to ten users with 500 to 2,500 monthly active contacts. respond.io publishes US$ 79 for five users and 1,000 contacts, rising to US$ 279. YCloud publishes a free tier, then US$ 39, US$ 89 and US$ 399, with users and channels as add ons at US$ 10 and US$ 5 each per month.

For a support team with one number, those are competitive and include an inbox that a connection does not. For an agency with fifty client numbers, the add on lines are where the cost appears, and it appears per channel rather than per conversation.

The question that decides it is whether anybody is going to log into the inbox you are paying for.

What about Twilio, which charges neither?

Twilio publishes a per message fee of US$ 0.005 in each direction, on top of Meta's own template fees which it passes through without markup. There is no monthly platform fee and no per number fee in its published pricing.

That makes it the cheapest way to hold a number that sends almost nothing, and the most expensive way to run a busy one. Fifty numbers sitting idle cost nothing; fifty numbers having real conversations cost per message forever.

It is also worth knowing that Twilio's pricing page does not address Coexistence. If keeping the WhatsApp Business app working on the number matters, that is the question to put to them before comparing anything else.

Which one should an agency actually choose?

The one whose unit matches what grows in your business.

If what grows is client numbers, per number pricing with a volume discount is the only shape that does not punish you for succeeding. EasyCoexistence is US$ 9 for the first three numbers and falls to US$ 2 each at a hundred, so the fiftieth client costs less than the first rather than more.

If what grows is agents answering in one inbox, a seat priced platform is the right purchase and this page is not going to argue otherwise. WATI and respond.io built that and it works.

If what grows is message volume on a handful of numbers, Twilio's per message model is worth modelling against the others at your actual send rate.

For the case this product was built for, an agency or a developer holding numbers they do not own, per number with volume pricing is both the cheapest and the only one that scales in the same direction as the business.

Common mistakes

• Comparing the headline figures directly. They are priced on three different units and the smallest number is often the wrong choice.
• Assuming any of these mark up Meta's message costs. None of the ones on this page do; Meta bills you.
• Reading an undocumented feature as a missing one. Where a pricing page does not mention Coexistence, ask the provider rather than trusting this table.

Frequently asked questions

Keep reading