Quick.Bot vs Chatwoot for WhatsApp
Chatwoot bills per agent from $19 a month and documents no visual flow builder; Quick.Bot bills per conversation from $49 a month and is built around the canvas. Prices verified September 2026.
Both tools put WhatsApp conversations in one place a team can work from. They are not the same kind of product underneath, and the decision comes down to two things: the unit you are billed for, per agent or per conversation, and whether you need to draw the automation rather than answer from a help center.
At a glance
| Chatwoot | Quick.Bot | |
|---|---|---|
| Billed for | Agents per month | Conversations per month |
| Entry paid price | From $19 per agent/month | $49/month (Starter, 1,000 conversations) |
| Visual flow builder | Not part of the documented product | Yes, flows you draw |
| AI assistant | Captain, answers from your help center | Answers from the flow and its blocks |
| Shared inbox | The core of the product | Included from Starter |
| In-chat payments | Not documented | Native, Stripe and Mercado Pago |
| Free option | Up to 2 agents, without WhatsApp | Free tier, 100 chats, 1 seat, WhatsApp included, no shared inbox |
Per agent or per conversation
Chatwoot charges for the people who answer, from $19 per agent per month. Your bill grows with the size of the team and stays flat as the volume of conversations rises. Quick.Bot charges for the conversations: Starter is $49/month for 1,000, Grow is $99/month for 3,000, and Scale is $149/month for 10,000, with seats bundled into each plan. Your bill grows with volume and stays flat as the team grows.
Neither model is better in the abstract. Run it both ways against the shape of your operation. A support team of 10 agents handling a modest number of conversations pays $190 a month on Chatwoot, against $149 on Scale, which comes with 10 seats and 10,000 conversations. Flip it: a team of 2 agents answering a very high volume pays $38 a month on Chatwoot, while on Quick.Bot the same volume runs past the plan quota and bills the overage, at $0.007 per conversation on Scale. Twenty thousand conversations on Scale is $149 plus $70 of overage. Two people fielding that much traffic is the case where Chatwoot is plainly cheaper, and it is worth saying so.
Meta’s per-message bill sits under both, charged by category and country, and no platform can remove it. From 1 October 2026 service messages are charged too, with 1,000 free service messages per number per month. The template and window pricing breakdown covers that half of the invoice.
There is no canvas in Chatwoot
This is the part that decides most evaluations. Chatwoot documents no visual flow builder. Captain, its AI assistant, answers from the articles in your help center, which works well for questions that already have a documented answer. What it does not do is run a sequence of steps you designed: qualify a lead across four questions, branch on the answer, check a slot, take a booking, then hand the conversation to whoever should close it.
Quick.Bot is a flow builder with the inbox attached. You draw the steps, the bot runs them, and when it reaches a point a person should take over it hands the conversation across with the full transcript, assignment and ownership intact. If the automation you have in mind has steps, that is where you would draw it. The handoff mechanics are worth reading before you pick either side.
The free tier and WhatsApp
Chatwoot’s free tier covers up to 2 agents and does not include WhatsApp, so it is not the plan to test a WhatsApp rollout on. Quick.Bot’s free tier does include the WhatsApp connection through Meta’s embedded signup: 100 chats a month with one seat and no shared inbox, plus a 14-day trial of the paid features when you need the inbox and the rest. Either way, compare the plan that actually has WhatsApp in it rather than the cheapest row on the page.
Where Chatwoot is the better choice
When the humans are the product and the bot is at most a first-response layer, Chatwoot is the right call. It is open source and you can host it yourself, which puts the conversation data on infrastructure you control and takes the per-seat price down to what your own servers cost. It was built as an inbox first, so the agent workflow, the canned replies and the reporting around a large support team are its home ground rather than an addition. A 20-person support desk that answers questions by hand and wants no drawn automation at all is not the customer Quick.Bot is priced for. The rundown of open source WhatsApp builders covers the self-hosted route in more detail.
Frequently asked questions
Is Quick.Bot cheaper than Chatwoot?
It depends on the shape of your operation, because the two bill different units. Ten agents on Chatwoot is $190 a month at $19 each, against $149 for Quick.Bot Scale, which includes 10 seats and 10,000 conversations. Two agents on Chatwoot is $38 a month, and no Quick.Bot plan gets under that once the conversation volume is high. Count your agents and your monthly conversations, then price both.
Does Chatwoot have a visual flow builder?
Not one it documents. Captain, its AI assistant, answers from the content in your help center rather than from a flow you designed, so multi-step automations such as qualification or booking are not something you draw there. Quick.Bot is built around that canvas and includes the shared inbox from its Starter plan.
Can I use Chatwoot for free with WhatsApp?
The free tier covers up to 2 agents and does not include WhatsApp, so a WhatsApp rollout starts on a paid plan at $19 per agent per month. Quick.Bot’s free tier does include the WhatsApp connection, with 100 chats a month and a single seat but no shared inbox, plus a 14-day trial of the paid features.
Try Quick.Bot free, or read the wider comparison of WhatsApp chatbot platforms.