Softwr

APIs · head to head

Convoy vs NATS

Convoy logo

Convoy

APIs

Open source webhooks gateway you self-host, handling both sending and receiving

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
NATS logo

NATS

Databases

High-performance messaging system for cloud-native applications

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Convoy the default deployment is self-hosted, so you operate Convoy plus Postgres and Redis and carry the on-call burden for the system that delivers your customers' events.; NATS core NATS has no persistence at all, so messages are lost if no subscriber is listening
  • They diverge on capability: Convoy covers Inbound and outbound, NATS covers Very low latency.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Convoy and NATS actually diverge.

Attributes where Convoy and NATS differ
AttributeConvoyNATS
Pricing modelPer month, flat rate regardless of volumeOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, CloudLinux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes
CategoryAPIsDatabases

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Convoy

  • Inbound and outbound
  • Broker-driven ingestion
  • Payload transformation
  • Portal links
  • Circuit breaking
  • Retry policies
  • OpenTelemetry export
  • Role-based access control

Only in NATS

  • Very low latency
  • JetStream
  • Single binary
  • Request-reply

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Convoy

  • A fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party SaaS for compliance reasonsnot NATS
  • A high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licencenot NATS
  • A team that also receives webhooks from many providers and wants ingestion, verification and deduplication in the same gatewaynot NATS
  • An engineering group that wants webhook delivery driven directly from an existing Kafka or SQS topicnot NATS

NATS

  • Service-to-service messaging where latency is the binding constraintnot Convoy
  • Edge and IoT messaging where a lightweight broker mattersnot Convoy
  • Replacing a heavier broker when the workload does not need its guaranteesnot Convoy

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Convoy

  • The default deployment is self-hosted, so you operate Convoy plus Postgres and Redis and carry the on-call burden for the system that delivers your customers' events.
  • Frain Technologies is a small startup, and putting customer-facing delivery infrastructure on it means accepting real vendor continuity risk on a component that is hard to swap out quickly.
  • The premium tier at a flat 999 US dollars a month is poor value below substantial volume, while the community edition omits the portal, transformations and RBAC that most production deployments end up wanting.
  • The hosted cloud trial is capped at one project and 100 events a day, which is too small to properly evaluate the service before committing.
  • Documentation and the third-party ecosystem are thinner than the established webhook services, so unusual configurations often mean reading the Go source.

NATS

  • Core NATS has no persistence at all, so messages are lost if no subscriber is listening
  • JetStream adds the durability but also the operational complexity NATS is chosen to avoid
  • A much smaller ecosystem than Kafka or RabbitMQ, with fewer connectors and integrations
  • Fewer people know it, so hiring and existing organisational knowledge favour the alternatives

Pricing, plan by plan

Convoy

Free
  • CommunityFree
    • Self-hosted open source gateway
    • Inbound and outbound webhooks
    • Automatic retries and message broker support
  • Premium$999/month
    • Flat rate irrespective of message volume
    • Portal links and payload transformation
    • RBAC, circuit breaking and white labelling
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • SAML SSO
    • Dedicated support with SLA
    • On-premises deployment assistance
  • Cloud$undefined/month
    • Hosted by Convoy
    • 14 day trial limited to one project and 100 events a day
    • Usage-based tiers above the trial

NATS

Free
  • NATSFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Which should you pick?

Choose Convoy if

  • You need inbound and outbound.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
  • You also want broker-driven ingestion.
Convoy review

Choose NATS if

  • You need very low latency.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
  • You also want jetstream.
NATS review

Questions people ask

Is Convoy or NATS better?
Neither clearly leads. Convoy starts at Free and NATS at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Convoy or NATS?
Convoy starts at Free and NATS at Free.
Does Convoy or NATS run on more platforms?
Convoy runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud. NATS runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
Can I use Convoy for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Convoy best used for?
Convoy is most often used for a fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party saas for compliance reasons, a high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licence, a team that also receives webhooks from many providers and wants ingestion, verification and deduplication in the same gateway, an engineering group that wants webhook delivery driven directly from an existing kafka or sqs topic. Of those, a fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party saas for compliance reasons and a high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licence are not what NATS is typically brought in for.
What can Convoy do that NATS cannot?
Convoy covers Inbound and outbound, Broker-driven ingestion, Payload transformation, Portal links. NATS covers Very low latency, JetStream, Single binary, Request-reply.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Convoy: Is Convoy really open source?

Yes, the community edition is open source and self-hostable, covering both inbound and outbound webhooks with retries.

NATS: Is NATS free?

Yes, open source and CNCF-graduated. Synadia sells a managed service.

Convoy: What does premium cost?

A flat 999 US dollars a month, self-hosted, regardless of message volume.

NATS: Does NATS persist messages?

Core NATS does not — it is fire-and-forget. JetStream adds persistence, streaming and replay when you need them.

Convoy: Does it receive webhooks as well as send them?

Yes, inbound ingestion with verification and deduplication is a first-class feature, unlike most webhook services.

NATS: NATS or Kafka?

NATS is far lighter and lower latency, and much simpler to run. Kafka is the answer when you need a durable replayable log and a large connector ecosystem.

Convoy: Do I have to self-host?

No, there is a hosted cloud, but the trial is capped at 100 events a day and self-hosting is the primary model.

Share

Related pages

More on Convoy

More on NATS

Keep looking

Other head to heads