Whapi.cloud vs Green API
Whapi.cloud has the broader endpoint surface and the richer webhook routing; Green API ships first-party client libraries in seven languages and adds a polling endpoint for events. Neither publishes an OpenAPI document. If your workflow leans on Channels or communities, check Whapi.cloud's coverage first; if you want an official client library, Green API has them.
Why these two get compared
Two hosted unofficial WhatsApp APIs with the same commercial shape: one linked number per channel or instance, billed per number rather than per message, aimed at teams that want notifications and two-way messaging without Meta's template process. They differ in breadth of the API surface, in how you receive events, and in what client code the provider gives you.
Side by side
| Dimension | Whapi.cloud | Green API |
|---|---|---|
| License | Proprietary hosted service under its terms of service. | Proprietary hosted service under its terms of service. |
| Engine and protocol | Hosted. One linked-device session per channel; the engine is not published. | Hosted. One linked-device instance per number; the engine is not published. |
| Hosting | Hosted by the provider. Nothing to run. | Hosted by the provider. Nothing to run. |
| Groups, Channels and status | Groups, communities, Channels (newsletters) and stories as REST endpoints. | Groups (create, participants, settings) as REST methods. Channel coverage is thinner than the protocol-level libraries offer; check the current documentation. |
| Pricing | Sandbox free with published ceilings. Premium quoted at $29 per number per month with a five-day trial; the annual figure is shown inconsistently on the pricing page.source, checked September 14, 2026 | Tiered per instance, with a free developer tier intended for testing. Current figures are on the provider's pricing page.source, checked September 14, 2026 |
| Maintenance cadence | Managed by the provider. No public source repository to measure. | Managed by the provider. Its first-party client libraries are versioned on GitHub.source, checked September 16, 2026 |
| Webhooks | Multiple URLs per channel, per-event routing, retries, a secret header and custom headers. | A webhook URL per instance, plus a polling endpoint that hands out queued notifications. |
| SDKs and client code | No OpenAPI document. Example bots rather than maintained SDKs; documentation on ReadMe with an llms.txt. | First-party client libraries for JavaScript, Python, PHP, Go, Java, C++ and 1C on GitHub. No OpenAPI document.source, checked September 16, 2026 |
Which one to pick
Pick Whapi.cloud when
You need groups, communities, Channels and stories over one API, and you want per-event webhook routing with retries and a secret header.
Pick Green API when
You want a first-party client library in your language, a polling option instead of a public webhook endpoint, and a simpler surface for notifications and replies.
Where Wapito fits
Wapito is a third hosted option in the same category: one linked number per channel, billed per channel, with the same ban risk. What differs is a published OpenAPI document and signed webhooks.
Frequently asked questions
How do the two pricing models differ?
Both charge per linked number rather than per message, which is the main reason teams choose an unofficial provider over Meta's per-conversation pricing in the first place. Whapi.cloud publishes a free Sandbox with ceilings and a Premium price per number; Green API prices per instance in tiers with a free developer tier for testing. Compare the per-number price against the feature set you will actually use, not the headline figure.
Which one can I generate a client for?
Neither publishes an OpenAPI document, so you cannot generate a client, diff the contract in CI or drop the specification into a mock server for either. Green API compensates with first-party client libraries on GitHub for JavaScript, Python, PHP, Go, Java, C++ and 1C; Whapi.cloud ships example bots and documentation on ReadMe with an llms.txt rather than maintained SDKs.
Do both carry the same ban risk?
Yes, fundamentally. Both drive a real linked WhatsApp device rather than Meta's official platform, so both can have a number restricted or banned, and neither provider can appeal on your behalf. Anti-ban controls differ in the detail, such as proxy allocation and warm-up, but no provider in this category can promise safety, and you should be wary of one that does.
Related
Read more about each
Feature guides
Other comparisons
Try it on your own number
Create a channel, link a WhatsApp number by QR or pairing code, and call the API in a couple of minutes. The Sandbox plan is free and needs no card.