Integration architecture guide
Webhooks vs Polling: Which Should You Use?
Choose based on network topology, latency, retry ownership, receiver availability and security boundaries rather than fashion.
Step 05 of 080 of 8 complete
Compare the trade-offs
| Concern | Webhooks | Polling |
|---|---|---|
| Latency | Usually lower | Depends on interval and backoff |
| Inbound network | Receiver exposes an endpoint | Receiver makes outbound requests |
| Retries | Sender needs durable retry handling | Receiver controls read retries |
| NAT and firewalls | May require ingress configuration | Often fits existing egress |
| Intermittent clients | Need delivery buffering and retry policy | Can retrieve work when connected |
Security and scale
Webhooks require careful endpoint authentication, replay protection, idempotency and abuse controls. Polling requires authenticated reads, a sensible interval and server-side rate limits. Both can scale when the workload and delivery contract are bounded; neither removes the need for backpressure and observability.
HeartbeatHook's model
HeartbeatHook uses a pending signal mailbox and authenticated polling followed by ACK. It is a practical option for private, firewalled or intermittent receivers. It is not a claim that polling is universally better. See the webhook alternative page.
Your progress stays on this device.