Webhooks vs. Polling
Webhooks vs. polling · how systems should talk to each other
Polling asks "anything new?" on a timer; a webhook gets pushed the moment something happens. The choice shapes latency, server load, and how much you trust the other side's reliability.
option AWebhooksoption BPollingserviceCustom software · everything else
→ Verdict
When the source system supports webhooks, use them — they're near-instant and they don't burn requests waiting for nothing. Fall back to polling when the source has no webhook, when you can't expose a public endpoint, or when you need a guaranteed catch-up after downtime. Robust integrations often use webhooks plus a slow reconciliation poll.
Pick a topic
When to pick which
A · Pick this when…
Webhooks
- 01You need near-instant reaction — a payment, a new order, a status change
- 02The source system offers webhooks and signs them
- 03You can expose a public, authenticated endpoint to receive them
- 04Request volume matters and you don't want to poll an idle API
B · Pick that when…
Polling
- 01The source has no webhook support
- 02You can't or don't want to expose a public endpoint
- 03You need a guaranteed sweep that catches anything missed during downtime
- 04A few minutes of delay is perfectly acceptable
Factors to weigh
Factor-by-factor
| Factors to weigh | Webhooks | Polling |
|---|---|---|
| Latency | Near-instant · pushed on the event | Up to one poll interval behind |
| Server load | Work only when something actually happens | Constant requests, mostly returning nothing |
| Reliability | Needs retries, signature checks and idempotency | Simple · just re-ask on the next tick |
| Missed events | Lost if your endpoint is down and there's no replay | Naturally caught on the next sweep |
| Setup | Public endpoint, auth, retry handling | A cron job and a cursor |
| Best at | Real-time reactions, high-volume sources | Resilience, sources with no webhook, catch-up |
Let's get started.
Send an email or book a 30-minute call.