Webhook Alternatives

FastHook as a Convoy alternative

Convoy is a serious webhook gateway option for teams that want open-source or self-hosted control over webhook infrastructure. FastHook is the alternative when the team wants the same gateway-shaped workflow without operating the gateway stack.

This comparison is for teams deciding whether webhook delivery should be owned as infrastructure or consumed as a managed control plane for sources, connections, destinations, retries, replay, and delivery evidence.

Fast path

separating flows that truly require self-hosting from flows that can use managed sources, connections, destinations, retries, replay, and delivery logs

Open dashboard Read quickstart

What Convoy is good at

Convoy is an open-source webhook gateway for sending, receiving, securing, debugging, and managing webhook events at scale.

It is a good fit for platform teams that want to deploy and operate webhook gateway infrastructure themselves, especially when self-hosting, data residency, or deep infrastructure control is a requirement.

Official references reviewed for this comparison: Convoy website, Convoy GitHub, Convoy webhook gateways article.

Where FastHook fits

Users search for a Convoy alternative when self-hosted gateway control is less important than setup speed, managed operations, destination integrations, and day-to-day recovery workflows.

Open source can reduce vendor lock-in, but teams still own deployment, upgrades, queues, storage, scaling, and incident response.
A self-hosted gateway can be powerful, but product teams may prefer not to operate another infrastructure component.
Managed destinations such as Google Sheets, Slack, Telegram, email, object storage, and CLI delivery may remove custom glue services.
Teams comparing cost need to include infrastructure, maintenance, and on-call ownership, not only license or plan cost.
The learning curve includes gateway architecture, hosting choices, persistence, workers, and operational tuning.
FastHook is a better fit when the immediate job is receiving provider traffic, routing it, and recovering failed deliveries quickly.

The core difference between FastHook and Convoy

Convoy favors open-source gateway ownership and self-hosting. FastHook favors a managed webhook gateway workflow with built-in destinations, source-to-connection-to-destination routing, retry, replay, and dashboard-visible delivery evidence.

Convoy is strongest when: open-source or self-hosted webhook gateway infrastructure where the team wants full operational control

When to choose FastHook

You want a managed webhook gateway without running the storage, workers, scheduler, and delivery infrastructure.
You need built-in destinations for Slack, Google Sheets, Telegram, email, object storage, HTTP receivers, and CLI tunnels.
You want operators to inspect requests, events, attempts, failures, retries, and replay actions in one hosted workflow.
You need to move quickly from provider setup to production recovery without designing a self-hosted control plane.
You want branch-local filters, transformations, retries, and replay tied to destination evidence.

When to choose Convoy

You need open-source code and full control over deployment.
You have platform engineers ready to operate webhook gateway infrastructure.
Your requirements include strict self-hosting, private networking, or custom gateway extensions.
You want one internally owned gateway for both sending and receiving webhooks.

How to migrate from Convoy to FastHook

List Convoy sources, endpoints, event types, retry rules, secrets, and delivery targets.
Decide which flows still require self-hosting and which can move to managed FastHook resources.
Create FastHook sources for provider-facing webhook URLs and copy provider signing secrets.
Create FastHook destinations for each HTTP receiver, Slack channel, Google Sheet, CLI tunnel, or archive target.
Move routing filters and transformations into FastHook connections.
Test delivery attempts, retries, and replay on a small event window before switching provider URLs.

FastHook vs Convoy pricing considerations

Compare infrastructure cost, team maintenance, storage, upgrades, on-call ownership, event volume, retention, and the value of managed destination integrations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is FastHook a good Convoy alternative?

FastHook is a good Convoy alternative when the job is webhook routing, debugging, replay, retries, and delivery to multiple operational destinations. Convoy remains a better fit when the primary need is open-source or self-hosted webhook gateway infrastructure where the team wants full operational control.

What is the main difference between FastHook and Convoy?

The practical distinction is scope: FastHook manages inbound webhook capture, routing, delivery attempts, retries, and replay, while Convoy is strongest for open-source or self-hosted webhook gateway infrastructure where the team wants full operational control.

Can FastHook capture webhooks like Convoy?

Yes. Unlike a basic Convoy capture workflow, FastHook sources preserve request evidence and can immediately create routed events with filters, transformations, retries, replay, and destination attempts.

Does FastHook support webhook retries and replay?

Yes. FastHook supports retry rules for failed destination deliveries and replay workflows for recovery after a receiver is fixed. This is one of the main reasons teams compare FastHook with Convoy.

Can FastHook route one webhook to multiple destinations?

Yes. When moving a Convoy workflow to FastHook, one source can connect to multiple destinations through separate branches with independent filters, transformations, retries, and delivery history.

Does FastHook send webhook data to Google Sheets, Slack, Telegram, and email?

Yes. Beyond Convoy, FastHook can deliver to Google Sheets, Slack, Telegram, Gmail, SendGrid Email, Discord, Cloudflare R2, AWS S3, Twilio SMS, Twilio WhatsApp, HTTP, CLI tunnels, and mock receivers.

When should I keep using Convoy?

Keep using Convoy when its core strength matches the project: open-source or self-hosted webhook gateway infrastructure where the team wants full operational control. FastHook is meant for teams that want the webhook stream itself to become a managed routing and recovery layer.

How hard is it to migrate from Convoy to FastHook?

Migration is usually straightforward when you inventory existing webhook URLs, copy provider secrets, recreate destinations, and test with a parallel FastHook source. The main work is separating flows that truly require self-hosting from flows that can use managed sources, connections, destinations, retries, replay, and delivery logs.

Does FastHook fully replace Convoy?

Not always. If Convoy is being used for open-source or self-hosted webhook gateway infrastructure where the team wants full operational control, it may remain useful. FastHook replaces the parts related to reliable inbound webhook capture, routing, debugging, transformation, retries, replay, and integrations.

How should I compare pricing for FastHook and Convoy?

Start with both current pricing pages, then model expected Convoy usage against FastHook by request volume, retention, team access, destination count, recovery features, and engineering work that remains outside either subscription.