Loading content…
Vivid Mark vs WhatsApp
Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
1. Listing metadata
Field-level data| Vivid Mark | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated |
Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Vivid Mark | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated |
| Metric | Vivid Mark | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | — | 4.9 ★ |
| Total reviews | 0 | 4k |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | Free plan available | Free plan available |
| Pricing tiers | ★ 4 tiers | 2 tiers |
| Listed features | 3 | ★ 4 |
| Languages | 1 supported | 6 supported |
Based on the data on this page, WhatsApp is the stronger choice for most Wix App Market site owners — 4.9★ vs Vivid Mark's 0.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
Pricing entry tiers: Vivid Mark at Free plan available, WhatsApp at Free plan available. Check each app's tier structure for the capacity limits you actually need before deciding — the headline number is the same shape, but the gating shape per tier (seats, usage volume, integrations) varies.
WhatsApp has the larger user base (3,958 reviews vs 0), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Vivid Mark's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage site owners who need fast install and low risk should default to WhatsApp; mid-market and enterprise site owners with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Vivid Mark's 0-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than WhatsApp's broader-but-shallower coverage.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Wix App Market listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: Vivid Mark audit • WhatsApp audit
| — |
| Keyword | Vivid Mark | |
|---|---|---|
| with whatsapp | Not ranked | #1 |
| chat | Not ranked | #3 |
| chat button | Not ranked | #4 |
| plan comparison | #6 | Not ranked |
| pricing plans | #14 | Not ranked |
Both Vivid Mark and WhatsApp offer paid plans only. Vivid Mark starts at Free plan available; WhatsApp starts at Free plan available. Compare the per-tier features in the Pricing section above before committing.
WhatsApp holds the higher average rating (4.9★ vs 0.0★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Wix App Market. WhatsApp has the deeper published review base (3,958 vs 0), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Vivid Mark typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (0 reviews). WhatsApp typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (3,958 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. Vivid Mark and WhatsApp both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Vivid Mark" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.