EzyConn vs Front: 2026 AI Chat vs Shared Inbox Comparison
Front built the modern shared inbox. EzyConn built the modern AI chat platform, and yes, it ships with an inbox too. Front is email-first, EzyConn is chat-first. The question for 2026 is whether you optimize around inbound email or inbound chat as your primary customer surface. If chat is where your customers show up, a real website AI chatbot does more for you than a better email client.
Side-by-side
Where Front is unbeatable
- Best collaborative email experience on the market.
- Powerful rules and automation across email channels.
- Strong B2B account-based workflows.
- Mature SLA reporting.
Where EzyConn pulls ahead
- AI is built-in and multi-model.
- Web chat is first-class.
- Real RAG over docs.
- Cheaper at scale.
When you want both
Some teams run EzyConn for chat plus AI deflection on the website, and Front for shared email. They sit alongside each other, not against each other.
How to decide in about ten minutes
Pull your last month of support conversations and split them by where they started. That one number settles most of this debate.
- If 70% or more of your volume is email threads with back-and-forth and CC'd colleagues, Front is built for exactly that. Stay there.
- If most of your volume starts as a chat on your site or in an app, you want native AI answering first. That's EzyConn's home turf.
- If it's a genuine split, run both and let EzyConn deflect the repetitive chat questions so your Front inbox only sees the threads that need a human.
A realistic example
A 12-person B2B SaaS team handles about 3,000 conversations a month. Two years ago that was 90% email, so Front was the obvious home. Today, after they shipped in-app chat, 55% of new conversations start as chat and the mix keeps shifting. Their agents were copy-pasting the same onboarding and billing answers into Front dozens of times a day.
They added EzyConn on the chat side, connected their docs, and let the multi-model AI (GPT-4o and Claude) handle first response. Roughly a third of chat conversations now close without an agent, and the ones that escalate arrive with the full transcript. Front still runs their email, which is still genuinely the best collaborative inbox we've used. The web chat just needed real AI, and at a flat $95/mo the math beat adding another per-seat email add-on.
FAQs
Should we replace Front with EzyConn?
Only if email volume is genuinely moving to chat. If email is still your primary surface, Front is the better tool and you should keep it.
Will EzyConn answer emails?
Basic email is supported, but Front's email handling is deeper, with rules, shared drafts, and collision detection that a chat-first tool doesn't try to match.
Can the two share context?
They run as separate surfaces. Most teams route escalations from EzyConn chat into a shared queue and keep Front for threaded email work, so each tool does what it's best at.
What does it cost to test EzyConn?
Nothing to start. The free plan gives you 2 seats and 100 AI conversations a month with no vendor branding, which is plenty to judge deflection quality on your busiest chat pages.
Related resources
AI chat that complements your shared inbox
Use EzyConn for chat plus AI and Front for email, or move both to EzyConn.
Start free