Part of a larger guide

This article belongs to our complete guide WhatsApp as a Newsletter Channel: The Complete Guide, where we cover everything from design principles to measurement frameworks.

Every comparison between WhatsApp and email newsletters is written by someone selling one of them. WhatsApp tool vendors show you charts where WhatsApp wins on every metric. Email platforms point to their massive installed base and lower costs. Both cherry-pick data. Both ignore the scenarios where the other channel is genuinely better.

We run content through both channels. Same brand, overlapping audiences, similar content themes. Here’s what we’ve learned over months of parallel operation, not from reading vendor blogs but from measuring our own results.


The Real Numbers: Stripping Away the Marketing Claims

Before comparing anything, let’s establish what the actual data says. Not what marketing materials claim.

The open rate reality

WhatsApp: Our measured open rate is 60%. Braze, one of the few platforms publishing verified engagement data, reports 68% read rates across their customer base. These are real, measured numbers.

The often-cited “98% open rate” for WhatsApp? It has no published source. It gets attributed vaguely to “WhatsApp” or “Meta,” but no study, report, or official statement backs it up. It’s likely a delivery rate (messages that reached the device) being confused with a read rate. Stop using it. It damages your credibility.

Email: The real open rate for email newsletters is 20-25%. If your email platform tells you your open rate is 42%, it’s lying, or more precisely, Apple Mail Privacy Protection (introduced September 2021) is inflating the number. Apple’s Mail app automatically loads tracking pixels for all emails, marking them as “opened” whether the recipient read them or not. Since Apple Mail handles roughly 50-60% of email opens, this inflates reported open rates by 15-20 percentage points.

So the honest comparison: 60% WhatsApp vs. 20-25% email. WhatsApp wins by roughly 3x. That’s impressive without needing to exaggerate.

The engagement depth comparison

This is where the gap becomes dramatic.

Email reading time: Litmus measured average email reading time at 9 seconds in 2022. Nielsen Norman Group’s widely-cited research found email newsletter engagement at 51 seconds. And only 29% of opened emails are read for more than 8 seconds. Most emails get scanned, not read.

WhatsApp reading time: Our measured average is 6 minutes per newsletter issue. That’s not a typo. Six minutes of sustained engagement with content.

WhatsApp delivers 7x to 40x more reading time than email, depending on which email benchmark you use. Even against the most generous email comparison (51 seconds for newsletters specifically), WhatsApp delivers 7x the engagement.

Why? It’s not because WhatsApp content is inherently better. It’s because the medium encourages different behavior. Email users have developed decades of inbox management habits: scan subject lines, open maybe 20%, skim for 9 seconds, archive or delete. WhatsApp users read messages. The chat interface doesn’t support skimming. Each message is consumed linearly, message by message, creating natural reading momentum.


The Full Comparison: Where Each Channel Wins

Here’s the detailed breakdown, category by category.

Reach and deliverability

FactorEmailWhatsApp
Global reach4.4 billion users2.7 billion users
Deliverability85-95% inbox placement95-99% delivery rate
Platform dependenceWorks across all devices and clientsRequires WhatsApp app
Geographic strengthUniversal, strongest in US/EuropeStrongest in LATAM, South Asia, Europe

Winner: Email for raw global reach. WhatsApp for deliverability and for specific markets like Latin America (96% penetration in Mexico) and India.

Subscriber acquisition

FactorEmailWhatsApp
Opt-in frictionLow (forms everywhere)Higher (requires chat interaction)
Infrastructure maturity20+ years of tools, pop-ups, integrationsLimited, mostly manual setup
Lead magnet compatibilityStrong (PDF downloads, gated content)Weak (no native file delivery workflow)
Subscriber acquisition costLow2-3x higher than email

Winner: Email, clearly. Building an email list is dramatically easier because the infrastructure is everywhere. Every website builder, CMS, and marketing platform has email capture built in. WhatsApp subscriber acquisition requires custom flows, click-to-chat links, and more manual effort.

This is the single biggest practical disadvantage of WhatsApp newsletters. Getting subscribers is harder and more expensive.

Content format and design

FactorEmailWhatsApp
Content lengthUnlimitedBest under 1,500 words total
Visual designFull HTML/CSS controlLimited to chat formatting
Rich mediaImages, GIFs, embedded video, custom layoutsImages, video, carousels, buttons
TypographyCustom fonts, colors, sizesBold, italic, strikethrough, monospace
InteractivityLimited (AMP for Email, rarely used)Native (polls, quick replies, buttons)

Winner: Depends on your content. Email wins for long-form, visually rich content. WhatsApp wins for conversational, interactive content. A 3,000-word deep dive with custom charts belongs in email. A 5-message insight thread with a poll belongs in WhatsApp.

Engagement and response

FactorEmailWhatsApp
Open rate20-25% real60-68% measured
Reading time9-51 seconds4-6 minutes
Reply rateUnder 1% (replies go to support inbox)8-15% on interactive issues
Click-through rate2-5%15-25%
Two-way conversationPractically impossibleNative and expected

Winner: WhatsApp, overwhelmingly. This isn’t even close. On every engagement metric, WhatsApp delivers multiples of email performance. The reply rate difference is particularly significant: when subscribers respond to your content, they’re building a relationship, not just consuming information.

Economics and scalability

FactorEmailWhatsApp
Cost per sendNear zero at scale$0.02-0.08+ per conversation
Platform cost$20-100/month for most needs$50-500/month depending on volume
Cost at 5,000 subscribers~$50/month all-in$100-400+ per send
Cost at 50,000 subscribers~$200/month all-in$1,000-4,000+ per send
Cost structureFixed (monthly platform fee)Variable (per-conversation pricing)

Winner: Email, by a wide margin. This is WhatsApp’s biggest weakness for newsletters. Email costs are essentially fixed. Once you pay for the platform, marginal cost per subscriber approaches zero. WhatsApp costs scale linearly with audience size. Every subscriber you add costs more to reach.

The country-by-country pricing adds complexity. A marketing conversation in Mexico costs differently than in Brazil or Germany. If your audience spans multiple countries, cost forecasting becomes harder.

FactorEmailWhatsApp
FindabilitySearchable inbox, folders, labelsBuried in chat history
Permanent recordYes, until deletedYes, but hard to find
Reference valueHigh (people search old emails)Low (people don’t scroll back months)
Content repurposingEasy (forward, save, print)Limited

Winner: Email. This is an underappreciated advantage. When someone thinks “I read something about [topic] a few months ago,” they search their email. Nobody scrolls back through months of WhatsApp messages. Email content has a long tail that WhatsApp content doesn’t.

FactorEmailWhatsApp
Regulatory frameworkWell-established (CAN-SPAM, GDPR)Evolving (Meta’s policies + local law)
Unsubscribe mechanismMandatory one-click (new Gmail/Yahoo rules)Block or “STOP” keyword
Data handlingMature ESP compliance toolsVaries by BSP provider
US restrictionsNoneMeta paused marketing templates for +1 numbers (April 2025)

Winner: Email for regulatory clarity. WhatsApp is newer territory with less established compliance frameworks. In the US specifically, the marketing template restriction is a significant barrier. In LATAM, the regulatory environment is more favorable but less defined.


When to Use Which: A Decision Framework

Forget “which is better.” The useful question is: when should you use each one?

Use WhatsApp when:

Use email when:

Use both when:


The Omnichannel Play: How We Use Both

When we started our WhatsApp newsletter, we assumed it would replace email for part of our audience. That didn’t happen. Instead, something more interesting emerged: the two channels serve completely different functions.

Our email newsletter is where long-form thinking lives. Detailed strategy guides, frameworks, case studies with full data tables. The people who subscribe to email want depth. They save issues. They forward them to colleagues. They reference old issues in conversations.

Our WhatsApp newsletter is where conversation happens. Shorter insights, provocative questions, interactive polls. The WhatsApp audience doesn’t just consume. They respond. They ask follow-up questions. They share their own experiences. The engagement is qualitatively different.

The overlap is maybe 30%: subscribers who receive both. And they engage with each channel differently, even when the core topic is the same. Email for the full framework. WhatsApp for the one insight that stuck.

The practical workflow

When we have a major piece of content:

  1. Email gets the full version. The complete guide, all the data, the detailed breakdown
  2. WhatsApp gets the sharpest insight. The single most actionable or surprising point from that piece, delivered as a 4-message thread with a poll and a link to the full version
  3. Social gets the hook. The opening question or data point, driving traffic to both channels

This isn’t parallel publishing. It’s deliberate reformatting for each channel’s strengths. The same idea, reshaped three different ways.


The Cost Question: Is WhatsApp Worth the Higher Price?

This is the question that trips up most content teams. WhatsApp costs more per send. Is the engagement premium worth it?

Here’s how we think about it:

Cost per read (not cost per send):

On a cost-per-read basis, WhatsApp is only about 50% more expensive than email, not the 10-20x difference the per-send pricing suggests.

Cost per minute of engagement:

WhatsApp delivers 27x more attention per dollar than email when you measure cost per minute of engagement. If your content strategy depends on deep engagement (building relationships, establishing expertise, driving considered purchases), the WhatsApp economics are dramatically better.

Cost per conversion: This varies too much by industry to generalize, but our own data shows WhatsApp subscribers convert to customers at a higher rate than email subscribers. Not because of the channel itself, but because people who opt into WhatsApp content tend to be more engaged from the start. When you factor in conversion rate, the higher per-send cost is often more than offset by higher per-subscriber value.


The Bottom Line

WhatsApp doesn’t replace email. Email doesn’t replace WhatsApp. They’re different tools for different jobs.

If you’re choosing only one channel (and you probably shouldn’t be): email for breadth, WhatsApp for depth. Email reaches more people at lower cost. WhatsApp reaches fewer people with dramatically higher engagement.

If you’re building a serious content strategy, use both. Let email be your library. Let WhatsApp be your conversation. The combination produces something neither channel delivers alone: an audience that both consumes your content deeply and engages with it actively.

The biggest mistake we see? Teams treating WhatsApp like a faster, chattier version of email. It’s not. It’s a fundamentally different communication medium with different design rules, different economics, and different strengths. Respect those differences and both channels will perform better.

Need Help Building a Multi-Channel Content Strategy?

Figuring out the right balance between WhatsApp and email (what content goes where, how to cross-promote, how to measure across channels) is the kind of problem we solve at Mazkara Studio. We’ve built content strategies that use both channels deliberately, not as duplicates of each other. If you’re rethinking your content delivery approach, get your free consultation to find what makes sense for your audience.

Running content through the wrong channel is worse than not running it at all. Let us help you figure out the right one.