comparison
Fieldpost vs Web3Forms
Web3Forms nailed the 5-minute form. Fieldpost keeps that setup and adds the security layer it's missing — because in 2026, every public form gets hammered by bots.
| Capability | Fieldpost | Web3Forms |
|---|---|---|
| No-backend HTML form endpoint | ✓ | ✓ |
| Public access keys | ✓ | ✓ |
| Custom redirects | ✓ | ✓ |
| Autoresponders | ✓ | ✓ |
| Honeypot spam check | ✓ | ✓ |
| CAPTCHA on free plan | ✓ | ✗ |
| Email MX + disposable-domain validation | ✓ | ✗ |
| Bot detection (fill-time, fingerprinting) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Rate limiting per visitor | ✓ | ✗ |
| Payload filtering (SQLi / XSS) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dry-run (flag) mode for every rule | ✓ | ✗ |
| Sensitive-data redaction | ✓ | ✗ |
| Data in your own database | ✓ | ✗ |
| Signed webhooks | ✓ | ~ |
| HubSpot sync | ✓ | ✗ |
Comparison based on publicly documented Web3Forms features as of July 2026. Web3Forms offers reCAPTCHA on its Pro plan.
The honest take
If you want a contact form emailed to you and nothing else, Web3Forms is good and its free tier is generous. Choose Fieldpost when spam actually hurts you — signup forms, lead forms feeding a CRM, anything where a fake email costs money downstream — or when you want submissions in a database you own instead of a 30-day mailbox.
Keep the simplicity. Add the armor.
One endpoint, one access key, zero backend code. Free tier included.
Start building →