what are the difference between WHMCS and WHMautopilot ? I know that WHMautopilot has a feature of reoccuring billing and automatically create accounts that WHMCS may or may not have (i'd like to know if it does or not) and also, is it true that WHMCS has a support feature and WHMautopilot does not ?

thank you

They are both completely different systems. Check out their sites respective feature lists to see what they each have. Many many people swear by WHMCS, because it's just a brilliant system.

is extremely different i have worked both systems .i think whcmcs is more brilliant and esay to use.

what are the difference between WHMCS and WHMautopilot ? I know that WHMautopilot has a feature of reoccuring billing and automatically create accounts that WHMCS may or may not have (i'd like to know if it does or not)

Yes, WHMCS has these features + a support system. :agree:

Another vote for WHMCS, Matt is possibly the most helpful person in the web hosting industry.

***No affiliation with WHMCS **** ;-)

one more vcote for WHMCS

Its a damn good software!!

I've found the reverse true, Matt was rude and nonchalant when I tried their software. Brandee Diggs of WHMAutopilot couldn't do enough to help.

WHMCS offers a helpdesk but can be restrictive, such as limiting the payment terms and how many of them when WHMAP doesn't. WHMCS is also very easy to use. WHMAP allows multiple currency profiles.

WHMCS is the better software, but you'll find their responses from their staff rude and with attitude.

WHMAP has great friendly support and yes Brandee Diggs will do anything for WHMAP customers. Great person.

WHMAP is better, just search whmcs and you will see it's full of big security holes... it's a poorly written program.

They are both completely different systems. Check out their sites respective feature lists to see what they each have.

I suggest you do as SuperBytes mentioned.

so, which one is better?

Only you can decide which system suits your needs best, so I'd suggest downloading the trial copies of each and putting them to the test.

In general, WHMCS is more feature rich, but the owned license is a bit more expensive than WHMAP (however, WHMAP has a tiered licensing system starting with a 250 account limit, whereas WHMCS is unlimited). As for leased licenses, WHMAP is a bit more expensive than WHMCS.

WHMAP requires Zend Optimizer (2.5.0) or Ioncube Loaders, whereas WHMCS only works with Ioncube.

Both products are fully supported via a ticket system as well as vBulletin forums frequented by the developers themselves.

WHMAP 30-Day Free Trial (http://www.mywhmautopilot.com/order/more_information.php?product_id=6,12)
WHMCS 15-Day Free Trial (http://www.whmcs.com/freetrial.php)

I would be another vote for WHMCS after using it at two companies and now using it at my own, that information it provides and the level of service that Matt provides is great, if you need custom work done they are always happy to help!

Overall rating of whmcs? 9/10 only thing that lacks is the support system is slightly weird, but now it intergrates with Kayako so thats no issue really.

One more vote for WHMCS. Matt's dedication and ease of use of the software is untouchable. We have been migrating our system to WHMCS and our team is simply very satisfied with WHMCS. I would say that was the best decision I made in 2007.

is extremely different i have worked both systems .i think whcmcs is more brilliant and esay to use.
This sounds like Fizzadar's comment. Brilliant? :rolleyes: Is this WHMCS' staff speaking? Lots of glowing comments that are sounding alike I'm afraid. I'm looking for a real critique and comparison of hosting billing systems, not fluff. If anyone can provide a link to a Consumers Report type article on the topic, I'm all ears.

Thanks

I've found the reverse true, Matt was rude and nonchalant when I tried their software.

Same here. I am a WHMCS user, but only because I haven't found anything that works better for our purposes. I really don't think anyone would be raving about WHMCS if it had a bigger price tag on it, I think WHMCS gets away with a bunch of stuff simply by virtue of it being cheap.

I just wish I could find something better. :(

As a company who has used both, I can sum it up for you.

WHM AutoPilot = buggy and non-existent support
WHMCS = good and responsive support.

Speaking from just our experience. Enough said.

If you ever tried to extend WHMCS's functionality, you'd realize the API is very weak. Why do all these billing systems have to go and encrypt their source code? It totally goes against the culure of open-source, and makes adding/extending features nearly impossible.

For what it's worth, here is my short critique based on my own experience. I tried Alberto's CE when it was in development and I couldn't get beyond misspelled words and an interface I did not like. I then tried PHP Coin, which failed miserably. I finally decided to buy WHMAP 2.0 after trolling their forum. Brandee, the developer, was good enough to provide me with version 3, a completely different product, once it was released. The road has been bumpy but their support is very good. Based on what I've see so far, WHMAP has an edge over WHMCS both in features and price.

However, a billing system that unfortunately does not work with cpanel gets top honors. It's the DSM and only comes packaged with a fully managed hosting server. Although these servers are fairly expensive, its control panel system for clients and backend interface for me and my resellers are top notch, and the software, including the billing system, is fully managed, and when I say managed, I mean it. It is a hands-off solution that really works.

I'm interested in buying billing software that will work with my cpanel server for clients who prefer a cheaper hosting option. Thus my request for reviews. I've been hosting OPW (other people's websites) since 1997 from the non-cpanel, DSM, datacenter.

It totally goes against the culure of open-source.

Eh? Whmcs has never been open-source

Eh? Whmcs has never been open-source

yea, he sounds like the average zealot who believe everything should be open and free.

I am not familiar with the WHMAP API (if there is one), but the WHMCS API is only meant to wrap up the common functions and make them accessible to everyone. I've coded addons that go above and beyond the API without any issues, as the database and other system are well-designed and "just work".

This is a very old thread....

This is a very old thread....
It's new now. Call it "re-born" if you will.
:D

I just chose WHCMS. I'm happy it is receiving more vote here. I delayed installing it because I was wondering if my choice was good. I consider their support system good though, cos I had some issue while obtaining the license. I submitted a ticket and was promptly attended to. One more vote for WHCMS

The difference is that most people find WHMCS has more solutions to their billing management needs.

I have to say brandee at whmap is a great person to deal with and whmap was the best a few years ago. With regret I have to say whmap seems to have fallen behind a little and I switched to whmcs. Whmcs is good and much better for my needs than whmap currently is.

Try both systems and see what suits you best.

I currently use WHMCS, and love all the features it has to offer. From skinning the template, which I think is quite easy, to customization of your outgoing emails for sales purposes, creating packages, addons, editing client information, support ticket system, etc; it is quite an amazing system. Currently in version 4.2.1, I highly recommend WHMCS to anyone and everyone looking for a viable billing solution.

I tried the trial of WHMAP, and I was not very impressed. It does what you need, but I did not like how the features were laid out. I felt/feel that WHMCS is a far superior product.

The only issue I have with WHMCS at the preset is the affiliate system. It is not very easy to follow - at least for myself; but, then again, I have not fiddled around enough with it ;)

I recommend WHMCS over any billing system I have used thus far.

I have used both, and although I have used WHMCS more than WHMAP, I still think that WHMCS is a bit better. I find it quicker and easier to use, more modules, and a few other handy things. I would choose WHMCS personally.

Presently using WHMCS as WHMAP needs a few updates. Wish I could switch back though, Brandee's support and attitude is far superior.

Presently using WHMCS as WHMAP needs a few updates. Wish I could switch back though, Brandee's support and attitude is far superior.
Agreed. Brandee does stick with it.

Have you used v2 or v3 of WHMAP? I used v2 at first but switched to v3. Updates are still coming out by the way.

The best billing system is the old Alabanza one, which we are using on a few different servers. It doesn't work with cpanel, which is where WHMAP comes in.

I've found the reverse true, Matt was rude and nonchalant when I tried their software. ...

I will try to offer some detail as to why I TOTALLY AGREE, and more. (Well, why not? :P )

[ begin unqualified personal opinions :P ]

The way I see it, from some four months of running the software, WHMCS will work OK for you if...


You do all your billing strictly online (less of a biggie perhaps, but we're not there yet)
You receive all your payments by credit card (no direct credit payments and certainly no checks in the mail)
(and therefore) You don't ever have any real world businesses, clubs or societies for clients, who for example will likely insist on paying only 20th following month for annual accounts as a matter of age old policy


All of those issues can be so easily addressed by one ultra simple code update. All it would require would be the simple flexibility of setting advance invoice dating based on the related product payment cycles, instead of the present situation where ALL invoices have to be generated at one set number of days prior to due date. For example, monthly cycles could be invoiced 14 days prior each month's due date, while annual invoices could be invoiced 60 days prior, allowing also for direct credit and check payments to be sent and processed on time. REAL SIMPLE, and so OBVIOUSLY needed for ANY real world business.

(Currently we sort of get by with setting it at 60 days -- for monthly invoicing as well. But that is just hopelessly confusing to all invoice.)

But WHMCS is stuck in a self-feeding loop such that that such a feature most likely can never be accepted. Why? Well, Matt tells me that it would require it be requested by large number of forum users (none of whom need the feature already — duh!) Of course, they NEVER will. Hello? They wouldn't even be existing happy clients if they did. Oh dear :(

So, under such anal conditions, it seems quite likely that WHMCS will remain stuck in its own self-feeding micro niche, serving only the 'lowest common denominator' features, forever. Do you want to be in a long term business relationship for a mission critical product with an organization having that attitude? Not me.

I should also note that, whilst it was offered in good cheer and at a very reasonable price (too cheap, frankly), there's simply no way we can accept a fudged custom-code version that needs to be re-fudged (at cost to all involved) each and every time a new version of the base code comes out, assuming Matt decides he can still be bothered at the time. That's just RIDICULOUS. Forget the client end of things — no self respecting software developer would even suggest such a silly thing, unless perhaps they has a tiny client base and never envisaged it growing. Imagine having thousands of custom versions of your code that you have to individually update every time you do another release?

When I tried to talk common sense with Matt on this score, he informed me I was not allowed to "dictate" new features, implying it would be somehow damaging to the spirit of his precious community if he went ahead and added a perfectly logical feature that would in no way change a single thing about what all the existing clients were doing or needed. In other words — he didn't give the feature once ounce of thought using his own brain for its own simple merits. LOL — Geeze!

Remember — WHMCS is a closed source commercial product! But it's run like a non-mission critical open source community project, but with only one supreme dictator taking all the money. Oh well. Whatever. Goodbye Matt and thanks for all the fish. :P

[ end unqualified personal opinions :eek: ]

Thank you Bryan!

As always, there's 2 sides to every story. Here's ours:

1. You asked if a feature was available
2. You were advised that it wasn't and instead of leaving it at that as we never like to leave clients without an option, were offered a price for having it done as a custom modification
3. You then went on to advise us how we're running our business wrong and should include it in the core releases after you've paid for it
4. What you didn't consider (and what you wouldn't be expected to know being a user but weren't open to listening to) is the impacts that feature would have on other features and the problems it would lead to - it wasn't refused at all for the reasons you're trying to imply here
5. You were then advised by John that general features are added based on demand and that you could post on our forums for others opinions but didn't seem to like that.

At that point you proceeded to be very rude towards our staff and company as a whole, and that's where things broke down. We do infact have many hundreds if not thousands of users with custom modifications to our software who all get on fine with them and the updates.

Clearly WHMCS isn't going to work for your needs, so we wish you every success with whichever billing provider you choose for the future.

Matt

I'm by no means a WHMCS fanboy, but your post is ridiculous. Both of your posts were just made today and both made to attempt to discredit them.

But WHMCS is stuck in a self-feeding loop such that that such a feature most likely can never be accepted. Why? Well, Matt tells me that it would require it be requested by large number of forum users (none of whom need the feature already — duh!) Of course, they NEVER will.

So what you're saying is, a company should devote resources to creating a function that only a small number of users want, rather than dedicating resources to what the majority of people want?

Myself and WHMCS both exist in a free-market economy. Not a chance.

Do you want to be in a long term business relationship for a mission critical product with an organization having that attitude?

Yeah, I do. If I had my way I would only purchase hardware and software from vendors that only made that particular item. It means that they will make sure it's good since they aren't diversified. I would rather buy a UPS from a company that does nothing but, than a UPS from a company that makes them on the side as a hedge against their tin foil business.

I should also note that, whilst it was offered in good cheer and at a very reasonable price

It isn't immediately clear from your post, but it sounds like you are saying that the guys at WHMCS offered to code in custom functionality for you at a low price, but you were upset that they offered to help you?

Remember — WHMCS is a closed source commercial product! But it's run like a non-mission critical open source community project

How's that? The source code isn't open, there's a central help desk and it's a piece of commercial for-profit software. The only similarities between the two are that they have forums, and that they create features that the majority of their users want. Every business does.

I'm not going to say I love every feature of WHMCS. Some parts I dislike and some I hate, but your post reeks of pettiness.

I'm by no means a WHMCS fanboy, but your post is ridiculous. Both of your posts were just made today and both made to attempt to discredit them.

You're being emotional.

If you choose to believe that and start a flame war. Sure. OK. Go ahead. My intentions however were to provide valuable feedback in hopes of helping others in a similar position to us avoid three months of painful, wasted time through simply not knowing one or two minor facts.

I did NOT say that WHMCS was useless, or anything of the sort. I very clearly gave them credit where credit was due, criticizing only what I genuinely feel are disappointing aspects of the product

I am still using WHMCS until I find a better solution (well, it's a live trial actually. But whatever.) There may not be a better one. I thought I may that clear too.


So what you're saying is, a company should devote resources to creating a function that only a small number of users want, rather than dedicating resources to what the majority of people want?


This demonstrates perfectly the exact lack of understanding I mentioned before. NO! What I am saying it that you could consider the idea of considering what clients you DON'T (and WON'T) have might need AS WELL AS what your existing clients do.

Myself and WHMCS both exist in a free-market economy. Not a chance.

That is completely besides the point and utterly pointless mention. SO DO I.

... If I had my way I would only purchase hardware and software from vendors that only made that particular item. It means that they will make sure it's good since they aren't diversified. I would rather buy a UPS from a company that does nothing but, than a UPS from a company that makes them on the side as a hedge against their tin foil business.

Agreed! And as I said, WHMCS is (stuck in) in its own micro niche. In the context of the above, you could have taken that as a compliment to them if you wanted.

It isn't immediately clear from your post, but it sounds like you are saying that the guys at WHMCS offered to code in custom functionality for you at a low price, but you were upset that they offered to help you?

Not immediately clear? Perhaps you should READ it then. I made it quite clear that the terms under which the code was offered was wholly unacceptable to me. Yes, "they" offered to help. But the offer was unacceptable. I too live in your free market, remember? So I declined, and gave my reasons for doing so in said post.


How's that? The source code isn't open, there's a central help desk and it's a piece of commercial for-profit software. The only similarities between the two are that they have forums, and that they create features that the majority of their users want. Every business does.

Huh? Sorry, but I just don't understand why you and others just can't get this? Any real world business out to make the best product, even in a pre-established micro niche, performs surveys OUTSIDE their EXISTING user base. Other wise, as I shouldn't even need to have clearly pointed out, they limit themselves to features only their existing client base requests. THAT is the basic nature of most open source projects (for which I have no complaints, since I don't pay money for their work). Dogmatically adopting the same attitude for a fully commercial product is simply limiting in terms of market growth. (I also fail to see how stating so is in any way offensive.)


I'm not going to say I love every feature of WHMCS. Some parts I dislike and some I hate, but your post reeks of pettiness.

Well, if it help in any way, I WILL say that I DO love quite a lot of what WHMCS does and how it works. That's why I selected it in the first place — or did you imagine it just showed up on my test system like a virus some day?

What I did say is that, for WHM/cPanel businesses with real world (I mean, offline / traditional — not that their world is any way not real) that need to invoice clients who can and will only pay well outside 14 days or even 45 days notice, then WHMCS simply can't handle that AND have monthly cycle clients as well. I frankly don't give a rats if their existing user base has ever noticed this simple fact or gives a damn. It remains a fact. I asked Matt if I was missing something. I asked him to suggest another approach to get arond it. He did/could not.

EVERYTHING ELSE about WHMCS seems work just fine, except maybe the way domain renewal messages are not linked/synchronized with invoices for same. But that could be raised in the community and maybe adjusted some day. It's not a deal breaker for anyone as far as I can see. The part that doesn't work, for prospects who can therefore never be WHMCS users, and therefore never suggest it, is a deal breaker for organization outside the present WHMCS niche market.

So where was the discredit again? It was my best attempt at objective criticism. I see no offense.

Thank you Bryan!

As always, there's 2 sides to every story. Here's ours:


Oh. Cool. It's Matt from WHMCS.

(Three sides, if I may. Yours, mine, and the facts somewhere int he middle :P )

This is good. Go on...


1. You asked if a feature was available
2. You were advised that it wasn't and instead of leaving it at that as we never like to leave clients without an option, were offered a price for having it done as a custom modification

Correct. The price was more than reasonable and I initially accepted it. But then I realised the situation of requiring such minor and non-invasive (more on that below) custom code to be re-customized at each and every update was unreasonable, on many fronts, both mine and WHMCS code base maintainers. That the latter was clearly not an agreed point did not change my view.


3. You then went on to advise us how we're running our business wrong and should include it in the core releases after you've paid for it
I'm sorry you took it that way (referring to all but my last email, which was more bitching about how you didn't seem to give a ****, frankly). I have copies of the emails here if you want to really get into it. What I ACTUALLY did was put forward my case for, well, everything I've gone over twice already in the original and above posts. I even signed off with something close to, "I hope I'm not being too much of a pain", if I recall.

But you didn't respond to that email. As far as I know, you never actually read it carefully. John replied to it, and you probably just took his attitude about it and slammed me straight back. It happens. No one's perfect. But it wasn't nice, none the less.

4. What you didn't consider (and what you wouldn't be expected to know being a user but weren't open to listening to) is the impacts that feature would have on other features and the problems it would lead to - it wasn't refused at all for the reasons you're trying to imply here
Dude — I'm a seasoned PHP programmer. I've already written several custom modules for WHMCS for tight integration into QuickBooks — something by the way that your existing users have been screaming for for years. Just check your own forum. I know EXACTLY what the negative effects of the feature would be. ZERO. I know because I've spent time messing manually with the database to test it already. So sorry, you're not getting away with this cheap shot.

In fact, it was you (John/WHMCS) who deigned to assume that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about and just fobbed me off. The code change required is SO SMALL. I know you agreed because you offered it for a mere $50!


5. You were then advised by John that general features are added based on demand and that you could post on our forums for others opinions but didn't seem to like that.
I think we've covered that already. You can't get fresh new ideas that would appeal to larger audiences from a majority of your existing, already-mostly-satisfied user base. Sorry. But DUH. And that is ALL I 'proceeded to' try and get you to understand. I in no way went beyond that as you claim to slander your company as a whole, or whatever. Anyway, clearly, I failed — both in fact and intention.

At that point you proceeded to be very rude towards our staff and company as a whole, and that's where things broke down.
Agreed. I did get a bit rude. I told you in no uncertain terms that the way I was being treated was unacceptable to a paying client. I told you that it was wholly unreasonable of you not to consider my advice on the basis of its own merit, rather than being told to fight for the damn thing in your forum for hours, trying to convert your existing user base so that one day I might win some victory and get the change in the main code base for the good of all concerned, instead of locked up in some random unknown custom code chunk somewhere. But again, you were unprepared to consider seriously the idea on its own merits, of which in fact there are many.

I EVEN OFFERED TO FINANCE the development FOR THE GOOD OF ALL USERS, if we could come to an agreement, ffs. But you were not the slightest bit interested. I know you had your reasons. I had mine. But I'd already stated my case and been essentially ignored or fobbed off twice. Enough was enough. (Or was it? Here we are, after all. Hmmm :P )

In any case, it seemed to me not at all unreasonable to reply, on-topic, to two existing posts herein with my genuine views about the product's limitation for ours needs, and my personal experience the people behind it in that regard. Had I been on some mission to discredit your company (a not nice thing to do and legally risky venture by all accounts), then I guess I might have posted new topics or something. I don't know, maybe something like 'WHMCS SUX'. (It doesn't — just to be clear!) Truly, I've no idea. Hell, from my point of view, I was only trying to help all involved right from the start.

We do in fact have many hundreds if not thousands of users with custom modifications to our software who all get on fine with them and the updates.

Rather you than me :D (I maintain several code trees using Subversion and I'll be damned if I ever want more than one or two branches to deal with. Hundreds or thousands? Frankly I find that very hard to believe. But OK. I'll take your word for it.) But I did also ask for clarification on that point, and got none. John failed to mention it at all. Never the less, I am not comfortable with it, and so I declined. I am still not comfortable with it for all the reasons stated. Do you want to be "right"? OK. I admit it. You are right. I am wrong. Your methods are fine for you. They work and you are comfortable with them. Good for you. I am not.

Clearly WHMCS isn't going to work for your needs, so we wish you every success with whichever billing provider you choose for the future.

Thank you, though I feel it's a shame considering the code additions required could be done in less than half a day with full testing, have absolutely zero negative affect on any existing users what-so-ever (actually!) and, in my mere user's opinion, open your product up for use by a much larger market. But as you rightly pointed out, I'm in no position to dictate anything. I merely voice an opinion.

Thank you for taking the time to put your side across. It's always good to strive for balance in these things — though I suppose I've gone and messed that up now by adding yet another post? Oops. :P I'll refrain from another unless it's invited.

All the best to you and WHMCS too. It's clearly a popular product. No arguments there. Pity we couldn't see eye to eye in this case.

Bryan.

WHMCS is the most preferable for the billing solutions. Its comes with well integrated ticket system. Combination of these both works great.

Another vote for WHMCS.

WHMCS suits our needs, and then some. Seems like there is a lot of flaming going on today. Here's my advice, if you don't like WHMCS, build your own system.

WHMCS suits our needs, and then some. Seems like there is a lot of flaming going on today. Here's my advice, if you don't like WHMCS, build your own system.

You could hire somebody to build your system. Not everybody can build a system. If they could, everybody would do it instead of buying a system.

You could hire somebody to build your system. Not everybody can build a system. If they could, everybody would do it instead of buying a system.

My point. I know that people are paying money to use WHMCS, but if all some people are going to do is complain then they would be better off building their own system, or hiring someone to do it for them.

My point. I know that people are paying money to use WHMCS, but if all some people are going to do is complain then they would be better off building their own system, or hiring someone to do it for them.

I agree with you completely.

The product is good however the support is hopeless. Its been more that 3 hours that my billing system is down I have raised tickets sent reminders but no help.

@issworld: If you've been bumping your ticket every few minutes all you're achieving is sending it to the back of the queue each time. We'll never see your ticket if you keep that up.

Support tickets are answered between 9am-2am GMT in the order in which the last message was received. Response times vary between 8 hours - 5 minutes depending on the complexity of the issue with fastest responses during office hours.

If you'd like me to take a look at your ticket please send the ID via PM.

I use WHMCS and yeah, don't see any reason to even look at other options. WHMCS can be customized for our needs if we're missing something anyways really...