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
Create a FastHook source, connect it to one or more destinations, then use events, attempts, retries, and replay to operate the webhook flow after the first test succeeds.
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.
Feature comparison table
| Capability | Convoy | FastHook |
|---|---|---|
| Webhook Capture | Convoy is built around receiving webhook events into a gateway. | Built in through stable source URLs with request, event, and attempt history. |
| Webhook Testing | Useful for production-like tests when its gateway and CLI tools fit the stack. | Supports source URLs, mock destinations, CLI delivery, replay, and receiver validation. |
| Webhook Debugging | Strong event inspection and operational context are central to the product. | Links inbound request data, routed events, transformed payloads, delivery attempts, and responses. |
| Retry Logic | Retries are part of the gateway model. | Connection-level retry rules for recoverable destination failures. |
| Replay Events | Replay or redelivery is part of the recovery workflow. | Replay individual events or recovery windows after a downstream fix. |
| Filtering | Filtering or routing rules are expected gateway capabilities. | Connection filters can match headers, body fields, query params, and paths. |
| Transformations | Payload transformation is generally part of the gateway toolset. | JavaScript transformations can reshape payloads before delivery. |
| Multi Destination Routing | Designed to route events between sources and destinations. | One source can fan out through multiple connections to separate destinations. |
| Google Sheets | Usually handled through HTTP, custom code, or an external integration unless offered directly. | First-class destination for appending webhook events as rows. |
| Slack | Usually handled through HTTP, custom code, or an external integration unless offered directly. | First-class destination for Slack channel notifications. |
| Telegram | Usually handled through HTTP, custom code, or an external integration unless offered directly. | First-class destination for Telegram chats or channels. |
| Usually handled through HTTP, custom code, or an external integration unless offered directly. | Gmail and SendGrid Email destinations are available for human workflows. | |
| API Access | API access is expected for gateway automation. | REST API and CLI operations for sources, destinations, connections, events, and retries. |
| Team Features | Good fit for engineering teams that want a central webhook control plane. | Team-scoped resources, dashboard workflows, event evidence, and shared routing objects. |
| Pricing | Evaluate by event volume, retention, environments, seats, and operational limits. | Best evaluated by routed event volume, retention needs, destinations, and recovery workflows. |
| Ease of Use | Powerful, but the setup depends on how much gateway configuration the team wants. | Designed around source, destination, connection, then test request. |
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.
Migration checklist
- 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.
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?
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.
Can FastHook capture webhooks like Convoy?
Yes. FastHook sources provide public webhook URLs and preserve request evidence. The difference is that captured requests can immediately become 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. A FastHook source can connect to multiple destinations through separate connections, so each branch can have its own filters, transformations, retry behavior, and delivery history.
Does FastHook send webhook data to Google Sheets, Slack, Telegram, and email?
Yes. FastHook includes destinations for 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?
Compare infrastructure cost, team maintenance, storage, upgrades, on-call ownership, event volume, retention, and the value of managed destination integrations.