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, with countdowns and reminder emails. That is a reminder that the clock is running, which is a different thing from knowing why a connection actually dropped.
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.
What it costs per number
Both charge a flat monthly fee per connected number rather than per seat or per message, and neither marks up what Meta bills for conversations.
Dualhook: Their own comparison pages describe a flat monthly fee starting at $12 per month, as published in September 2026.
EasyCoexistence: From US$ 9 per connected number per month, falling to US$ 0.75 as you add numbers, with no user or contact limits. For an agency the difference compounds with every client number added.
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: Sixteen 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.
Frequently asked questions
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.
How do the two approaches to the 14 day rule differ?
They warn at thirteen days that the clock is running. We read Meta's own disconnection reason, which separates a fortnight of quiet from a client who actually left, and we reapply the webhook override afterwards so delivery does not silently stop.
Where does EasyCoexistence differ?
An MCP connector with sixteen tools, which their documentation does not describe, and reapplying the webhook override automatically after a reconnection removes it.
Is this page fair?
Every figure here comes from their own published pages and is dated. Read them before deciding: a comparison written by one side is evidence, not a verdict.
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, sixteen 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.
- What WhatsApp Coexistence costs, provider by providerWhat each provider charges to hold WhatsApp numbers, at one, ten and fifty numbers. Figures from their own pricing pages, September 2026.
- EasyCoexistence vs TwilioTwilio adds a published per-message fee on top of Meta's. EasyCoexistence charges a flat monthly fee per number and never touches the message bill.
Ready to get started?
Set up WhatsApp Coexistence in minutes, not months. The app keeps working on the phone.
Start Free TrialNothing charged for 3 days. Cancel anytime.Verified on
Product names and trademarks belong to their owners. EasyCoexistence is not affiliated with the companies compared here, and their prices are as published on their own sites on the date above.