Live chat
Last updated · A-Widget
| Decision | LiveChat | Crisp | tawk.to | HubSpot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | A team comparing staffed chat and the new Text AI scope | A team comparing a workspace model and broader message handling | A business that mainly needs a staffed chat entrance | A business already managing contacts and inquiries in HubSpot |
| Documented scope | New trials use Text plans with chat, inbox and AI Agent; Essential and Growth charge per user with AI limits; Existing LiveChat plans remain on legacy pricing | Shared customer inbox; Website chat and plan-based automation; Seats and automation vary by package | Published free live chat service; Optional paid services are separate; Free software still needs staffing | Website live chat and CRM route; Chatflows and account-based management; Advanced capabilities depend on entitlement |
| Trade-off | Check seats and AI resolutions against Tidio usage units | Package and AI-credit scope are not identical to Tidio quotas | Optional services and the team's labour remain separate | Advanced workflows can require broader product entitlements |
| Next step | Read LiveChat analysis | Read Crisp analysis | Read tawk.to analysis | Read HubSpot analysis |
Write down the exact limit first. It might be human conversation volume, AI scope, staff access or the way the team handles work. Replacing a product without naming that gap can move the same problem into a new account.
LiveChat
Our verdict:
Human support with a Text option
Best for A team comparing staffed chat and the new Text AI scope
Keep in mind: Check seats and AI resolutions against Tidio usage units
LiveChat is a candidate when people, rather than a bot, will do most of the support work. Its listed plans use a per-person model. That can make the staff side easier to compare if you know who needs access and which hours they cover.
It does not mean the total will be lower. Tidio's usage units and Text's seats and AI resolutions need a workload check. Text is the new-trial offer on LiveChat's pricing page. It includes AI rather than requiring a separate bot for every AI task.
If the main concern is organising a human queue, inspect LiveChat's current routing and staff features. The useful question is whether the team can see and own work clearly. A familiar-looking launcher is not the deciding feature.
For a fictional service desk, one person might handle the first reply and another might resolve account issues. The product should support that handoff under the chosen plan. Staff also need a business rule for when the handoff happens and what the user is told.
For an AI need, compare Text Essential, Growth and Enterprise on the current plan page. Each has an AI scope, with plan limits or custom terms. Check the required task and handoff, not just the product name.
Read LiveChat's official pricing and help for the exact access model. Count the people who need to work, then inspect the feature scope. Keep an unknown item open until the current help shows it.
An existing LiveChat customer uses the legacy plan table. That account is not the same purchase as a new Text trial. ChatBot is still a separate product; that fact does not describe Text's included AI Agent.
Check the supported installation for your platform. A WordPress plugin, a Shopify app and a general website script can have distinct setup paths. Do not assume the same connection exposes the same order or contact context on every platform.
Review history, exports and access controls before moving. A new inbox does not by itself contain old Tidio conversations. If the business needs those records, inspect the supported export and import routes separately.
Expect to rebuild greetings, working hours and routing rules. A flow designed in one product is not by itself portable to another. Keep a record of the old behavior so you can decide which parts are worth recreating.
Inspect saved replies and knowledge sources as their own assets. A conversation export may contain messages without preserving the rules or content that produced them. Do not delete the old account just because the new launcher appears.
If staff change systems, give them a clear cutover point. New work should have one primary owner and location. Keeping two active chat routes without a plan can split requests and make follow-up harder.
Choose LiveChat for a verified human-support need its current plan supports. Pass when the need is a simple message form or an AI task that would require a distinct product. The trade-off is staff-based cost and the work of rebuilding the support process.
Crisp
Our verdict:
Shared-inbox package
Best for A team comparing a workspace model and broader message handling
Keep in mind: Package and AI-credit scope are not identical to Tidio quotas
Crisp is a candidate when the business wants to compare a shared-inbox package with Tidio's setup. Its current pricing presents workspace packages, included seats and distinct automation scope. Those dimensions need to be read together.
A workspace price may sound simple, but the package still needs to contain the staff access and features the business needs. Do not assume a single amount grants unlimited automation. Inspect the current AI and workflow terms alongside the base package.
If the concern is how staff collaborate across messages, evaluate the inbox process. Decide who takes a conversation, how a handoff is marked and how staff find unresolved work. The right system should fit those daily actions.
A fictional small team may want private coordination around a user question. That is an exact feature to check, not a reason to assume every package includes it. Read the current plan for notes, roles and routing where those matter.
If the concern is Tidio's AI allowance, compare the new unit carefully. Crisp's current page describes AI credits in paid packages. A credit and a Lyro conversation are not the same label, so do not manufacture a direct cost-per-answer comparison.
The Crisp pricing page now distinguishes Free, Mini, Essentials and Plus. The Free package lists website chat and two included seats, with no included AI credits. Paid packages add their own scope.
That makes a free shared-inbox route worth inspecting for a small human-chat task. It does not prove free AI support. Keep the package's real post-trial state separate from features a new account can explore during a trial.
Confirm that the replacement supports your store platform and required data. Follow its platform-specific setup guide: a general integration logo does not establish access to order details or permission to change them.
Map Tidio's active paths to the new package. Keep human chat, fixed flows and AI answers as separate rows. For each, decide whether Crisp has a documented replacement, whether you will change the task or whether you will remove that path.
Do not recreate an unnecessary flow simply because it existed. Review why it was there and whether users used it for a meaningful task. A migration can be a chance to simplify, but it should not silently remove a needed contact route.
Check history and export contents before closing the old account. A list of contacts and a full conversation record are distinct data sets. Record any details that cannot move and how staff will access it during the transition.
Consider Crisp when its current shared-inbox package fits the team and the required message paths. The trade-off is package matching and the need to understand its own automation units. It is an alternative to assess, not a guarantee of lower cost or identical behavior.
tawk.to
Our verdict:
Free base human chat
Best for A business that mainly needs a staffed chat entrance
Keep in mind: Optional services and the team's labour remain separate
tawk.to is a useful alternative when the verified need is human chat and a base software fee is the main concern. Its official site offers free live chat software. That is a narrower and more useful statement than calling every related service free.
The business must still provide a response process. Staff hours, follow-up and private-data handling do not disappear when the plan line is smaller. Count that work when deciding whether the switch solves the real problem.
If the site only needs occasional human conversations, it may not need the broader automation mix it had in Tidio. A free base service can be worth assessing for that simpler task. Remove unnecessary complexity deliberately rather than by surprise after a switch.
For a fictional local business, the needed path could be a clear greeting during office hours and a later-message route outside them. The owner should compare those exact behaviors. There is no need to assume a bot is required merely because the old account exposed one.
If AI knowledge answers are the reason for the change, do not treat base human chat as an equivalent replacement. Inspect the real product or service needed for that separate task. Keep its current terms outside the free base assumption.
Use tawk.to's own site and help for the current installation and optional services. Check any branding need key to your site. If removing branding or adding another service costs money, include that verified condition in the decision.
Review staff access and message handling. Decide who receives work and who removes old access. A free system can still hold user details that needs a clear owner and a suitable retention process.
Check the external script's placement on your website. If the old Tidio snippet remains, users may see two launchers or staff may receive requests in distinct accounts. Plan a controlled cutover rather than leaving both by accident.
Rebuild the greeting and offline message to describe the new real workflow. Do not copy a promise of AI help into a human-only setup. The words in the screen should follow the available service.
Keep open follow-up tasks from the old inbox. A conversation may be complete on the website while still needing staff action. Assign those tasks before changing the public entrance so they do not vanish from attention.
Inspect the old account's export route and cancellation terms separately. Removing the website script is not the same as closing a plan or deleting data. Treat each as a distinct action with its own readback.
Choose this route when a defined human-chat task fits the current free base service and the team can staff it. Pass when the switch would remove a required automation or CRM workflow without a replacement. The main trade-off is the difference between a smaller software bill and the wider support job.
HubSpot
Our verdict:
CRM-based follow-up
Best for A business already managing contacts and inquiries in HubSpot
Keep in mind: Advanced workflows can require broader product entitlements
HubSpot is a candidate when the business wants the conversation to sit within an existing CRM process. Its official live chat route connects to that wider environment. That can be useful if the team already uses the resulting records for real follow-up.
Adopting a CRM only to replace a small chat feature can create a larger job than expected. Compare the ongoing record work, access and product scope. More context helps only when staff can use it accurately and appropriately.
If the problem is losing inquiries between chat and follow-up, a CRM-linked path may be worth inspecting. Define what record should be created or updated and who acts on it. A new record alone is not a qualified lead.
For a fictional agency, a user might ask about a service and request a later reply. The team could route that inquiry through an existing contact process. It should not treat every general question as consent for unrelated marketing.
If the concern is only the number of human conversations, compare the current chat plan scope directly. Do not assume the free product page shows every advanced automation action. The exact account and paid product scope still matter.
Read HubSpot's live chat overview and current knowledge base for chatflow setup. Identify the features included in the planned account. Product names across the platform can describe distinct plan limits.
Check which contact details the chat uses and which staff can see it. Avoid connecting more data than needed. The website's privacy and consent explanation should match the real installation, including any tracking script the vendor needs.
Let visitors ask a general public question without first identifying themselves. Ask for a reply address when follow-up requires it, and explain its purpose. Keep account-specific changes behind the appropriate identity check.
Map the old contact fields to the new record structure. Check names, job and meaning, not just whether two columns look alike. A field called “status” can mean distinct things in two systems.
Inspect what can be exported and imported under the supported routes. A contact import may not include complete conversation history, attachments or the state of open work. Keep a plan for the records that cannot move.
Give staff a clear place to handle new inquiries after cutover. Avoid splitting ownership between the old inbox and a new CRM record with no defined relationship. Review the first real requests through the new path once it is live.
Choose HubSpot when chat supports a CRM process the business already needs and the current account fits the task. Consider a narrower option when the business has no use for that wider workflow. The trade-off is the scope and upkeep of the system around the widget.
Use the current Tidio pricing reference to check whether the issue is a human quota, an AI allowance, a flow unit or a feature boundary. Those concerns can lead to distinct alternatives.
Write a short need in observable terms. “Staff need to assign this question to another person” is useful. “We need a better chat system” is too vague to compare. Keep the expected behavior beside the current vendor source.
Separate a product limit from a setup problem. A duplicate script, an outdated answer or an unstaffed queue may not require changing products. Fixing a known setup issue can be smaller than rebuilding every path elsewhere.
List the people who need access and the types of work they handle. Add the expected human and bot volume as labelled assumptions. Then inspect how each vendor counts that work.
Do not convert unlike units into an invented equivalent price. A seat, a billable conversation, a ticket and an AI credit can have distinct scope. Keep any part that cannot be priced from current evidence as unknown.
Record the billing period. An annual equivalent and a month-to-month amount are not the same payment commitment. Check renewal and cancellation rules before judging the switch by an entry figure.
Ask what a user sees when the system cannot answer. A clear contact route can be more useful than a larger feature list. Check offline staff coverage, a bot's unknown response and a blocked widget.
Keep the business's key policies and contact details in normal website content. Visitors may block an external script or use a device where it fails. A vendor outage should not erase the whole support path.
Identify message content, contact fields and any connected account or order data. Read the new vendor's current terms and supported roles. A migration can change who receives data even if the front-end widget looks similar.
Avoid moving private details merely because an import accepts it. Keep only the fields needed for the new task and preserve records through a suitable business process. Do not put passwords or payment card details into chat exports or test messages.
Confirm the new vendor supports the real platform and plan. A generic script may be blocked by hosted-site restrictions. An official app can request distinct permissions from a manual embed.
Record every installation location for the old and new systems. A theme snippet, plugin and app embed can overlap. Remove the known old route at cutover and inspect the signed-out live page.
Install the new route in a safe preview or limited context first. Use fictional messages for setup checks. Verify the correct business account receives the work and that a reply reaches the user.
Check the mobile launcher against purchase and consent controls. Open and close the panel with a keyboard. Confirm the handoff and offline states, including the case where no one can answer immediately.
Disable the old public installation through its known route. Do not remove unrelated scripts from a shared template. Inspect the live page to confirm there is one planned entrance and no leftover duplicate.
Watch the new queue for misrouted work and unclear user expectations. Review any open task left in the old system. The cutover is not complete merely because the new widget loads.
Handle the old plan and data separately. Check cancellation, export and retention controls in the vendor's current process. Removing a script does not prove that billing stopped or records were deleted.
Update the website's policy and support instructions to match the installed service. Keep an internal note of the removal route and plan scope so a future editor can maintain the choice without guessing.
Review each old flow's job. If it collected details nobody used, removing it may improve the user path. If it handled a real exception, give that exception a documented replacement before deleting the route.
Do not preserve a misleading promise simply for consistency. A move from AI-first support to a staffed queue should change the wording. A move into a CRM should explain a later reply honestly rather than imply a sale was accepted.
The main live chat comparison is the next step when you need to reconsider the whole service model. The right alternative is the one that meets the named need with a clear owner and safe fallback.
A small shop can make a much clearer choice if it starts with one open task. Take a fictional request about a late parcel. The user has already spoken to staff, but the issue is not closed. The new chat tool must not make that work vanish when the old launcher is removed.
Write down where that request will live after the switch. It may stay in the old inbox until it is done, or move through a supported export and import. In either case, a person needs to own it. A new account with no record of the issue is not a full move.
Now look at the next user who asks the same question. New work should go to the chosen new route. Staff should not need to check two live queues and guess which one matters. Set a clear point for the switch and tell the team where to work.
Next consider the first reply. The old tool may have sent a bot answer before a person joined. If the new setup is human-only, change the greeting. Do not leave words that promise an instant bot answer when the route now waits for staff.
This also changes the offline path. A person-led queue may use a later message when the shop is closed. Read that message as a user. It should say what happens next without claiming that a staff member is already looking at the request.
Check the path for someone who asks for help but gives no reply address. Explain what staff need to follow up. Let the user decline to share that detail and still read public policies. Do not make a routine answer depend on an unrelated data request.
A second fictional case is a service firm moving into a CRM. The team wants to avoid losing quote requests. The useful result is not just a new contact row. It is a request that reaches a person, has a clear next step and can be found again.
Map the old fields by meaning. A field called source may mean the page where chat began. In the new system it may mean a sales channel. Keep those meanings distinct so the move does not create a neat but false record.
Do the same for status. Open, pending and closed can describe distinct staff actions in two tools. Decide what each old state should mean in the new process. If there is no sound match, retain the old state as a note rather than forcing it into a wrong category.
A third case is a site leaving paid automation to keep only free human chat. That can be a sound choice when the bot did not serve a needed task. It can also remove a useful after-hours answer. List the answers users still need and leave them on normal website pages.
Give those pages clear links from the chat greeting or contact area. A public answer can remain useful without a bot. The new setup should not make users ask a person for a fact that the site could state plainly.
Check the team's daily work after the move. Assign the first message to a person or queue. Name who handles an issue they cannot solve. Agree on a clear done state. Those daily tasks often matter more than the shape of the chat panel.
For each case, keep a short expected result before checking it. The late-parcel task should retain an owner. The quote request should reach the right person. The public FAQ should remain readable. A test is more useful when success is defined in those terms.
Use fictional data in the setup. A name and a short sample question can show the route without exposing a real user's issue. Do not paste private chat history into a new tool merely to fill the screen with realistic examples.
Once the new public route is live, look for signs of a split setup. A second launcher can come from old code. A staff notice may still point to the old account. A link in a saved reply can still send users to the retired form. Check each known location you own.
Do not treat a missing email as proof that the new chat lost the request. Inspect the saved work in the real inbox. Email delivery and record storage can fail in distinct ways. Staff need to know which record they should trust.
Keep the old plan and data tasks on a separate list. An app removed from a website can still have a paid account. A plan cancelled in the service can still leave code on a page. Confirm each action through the correct system rather than assuming one change did both.
The move is complete when new work has a clear route, old open tasks have an owner and the public wording matches the service. A polished launcher is useful, but it is only one small part of that result.
An imported contact or transcript does not prove that the new tool has the old routing rules. List the rules the team still needs: who receives a new request, where an unmatched topic goes and how an offline message is handled.
Build and check those rules in the supported new setup. Use fictional details and inspect the receiving queue. Keep any missing rule on the cutover list. Do not mark the move complete just because the history file opened without an error.
A transcript export can preserve what was said while omitting the rules that assigned the conversation. Create a separate map for routing triggers, opening hours, saved replies and escalation destinations. Only recreate a rule when the replacement documents the action you need. A similar-looking automation name is not evidence of equivalent behaviour.
Decide which system owns each open conversation during the overlap. If old work stays in Tidio until it closes, keep staff access and a clear cutoff for new work. If a supported import is used, preserve the old identifier beside the new record so staff can trace an unanswered request. Do not infer a successful import merely because a file was accepted.
Keep historical labels separate from current permissions. An imported contact marked “customer” does not automatically establish identity or authorise an order change. A stored email address does not establish consent for unrelated marketing. Review the destination system’s actual fields and access controls before enabling a flow that acts on imported data.
That depends on the exact current package and task. Different vendors count seats, conversations, workspaces and automation in distinct ways. Define the workload and compare the current offer for it. This guide does not invent equivalent bills from unlike units or count unknown costs as zero.
Do not assume so. Inspect the old vendor's supported export and the new vendor's import. A contact list and complete conversation history are distinct records. Check attachments, timestamps and open-work state where needed. Preserve any required records that the supported import cannot carry.
A controlled preview can help verify the new route, but two public entrances can split work or load duplicate scripts. Define the cutover and keep staff ownership clear. Preserve a normal contact alternative while you confirm the new listed user-to-staff path.
Only if the change addresses the cause. A better routing feature may help a verified workflow problem. It will not supply staff coverage or update a stale policy by itself. Check the queue owner, hours and handoff before assuming the current vendor is the whole issue.
