SendHQ is an email API for sending and receiving transactional mail. You verify your domains, get scoped API keys, and every product, background service or AI agent you run gets its own sending identity and inbox inside one workspace. It suits developers tired of running a separate email stack per project. Our read: the Resend compatibility and the pricing are the two genuinely strong cards, but this is a new product from a small company with no independent track record, and no free tier to test it on.
What Is SendHQ?
SendHQ is an email platform at sendhq.cc, built by Wavicle Technologies. The same company runs several other products, including AuraVMS, JobFinder AI and Compliance Radar.
The problem it targets is email sprawl. As a company ships more products, it tends to accumulate a transactional provider here, a support inbox there, an agent with its own credentials somewhere else, and a separate outbound tool. SendHQ folds those four into one workspace where domains, identities and delivery history stay separate but visible. Target users are developers, small product teams and anyone giving an AI agent the ability to send and receive mail.
How Does SendHQ Work?
You add a domain, and SendHQ generates the SPF, DKIM and DMARC records. You place them in DNS and it confirms verification. Nothing sends until ownership is checked.
Next you create sending identities. Each product, service or agent gets its own address and its own scoped API key, so a receipts identity cannot send from your outreach domain. Sending is a single POST to the API, or a call through a Resend SDK, since the interface mirrors Resend’s.
Inbound works the same way in reverse. Named inboxes receive replies, retain attachments and thread metadata, and fire webhooks into your code. The dashboard shows a live inbox and outbox with raw MIME inspection, plus delivery, bounce and complaint events recorded separately from provider acceptance.
Key Features
- Resend-compatible REST API:Â existing Resend SDK code and integrations work without a rewrite.
- Verified domains at scale:Â 15 domains on Starter, 200 on Scale, each with generated DNS records.
- Agent mailboxes:Â real inboxes and identities for Claude, Codex, Cursor and similar agents, with a human able to take over.
- Inbound routing:Â named receiving addresses with webhooks, retained messages and attachments.
- Scoped API keys:Â per-workspace and per-identity keys so one product cannot send as another.
- Delivery events:Â bounces, complaints and suppressions recorded as evidence rather than assumed success.
- Public API contract:Â a versioned OpenAPI spec and an agent operating guide you can inspect before buying.
Performance and Experience
SendHQ runs on Amazon SES by default, behind what the company calls a pluggable provider layer. That is a sensible choice. SES is a proven backbone, and the abstraction means a provider swap should be a configuration change rather than a rewrite.
The most useful design decision is philosophical. SendHQ states that it does not treat provider acceptance as an inbox-placement claim. Bounces, complaints and suppressions are recorded separately from sends. Most email tools blur that line and report a delivery rate that means very little. This one keeps them apart.
What is missing is evidence. There are no published latency or deliverability benchmarks, no status page, no uptime history, and no listing on G2, Capterra or Trustpilot. For infrastructure that your password resets depend on, that absence matters more than it would for a design tool.
Integrations and Compatibility
The Resend compatibility is the headline. If your codebase already calls Resend, you point it at SendHQ and change the key. That removes almost all switching cost, which is unusual and commercially bold.
Beyond that you get a plain REST API usable from any language, inbound webhooks, and a public OpenAPI specification. The company also publishes an agent operating guide, which is a practical touch for anyone wiring an LLM into a mailbox.
Gaps exist. SMTP relay support is not mentioned anywhere on the site, which rules out legacy systems that only speak SMTP. There is no listed native integration with CRMs, no marketplace app, and no plugin for any framework beyond the API itself.
Who Should Use It?
Best suited for: developers running several products who want one email layer, teams already on Resend looking to cut cost, builders giving AI agents real inboxes, and anyone who needs many verified domains without per-domain pricing.
Not ideal for: anyone who needs a free tier to prototype, teams requiring a contractual uptime SLA, systems that can only send over SMTP, large senders who need a documented deliverability record, and marketers wanting campaign design tools.
Exploring AI Tools Through Real User Experiences
The strategy here is clear and smart. By copying Resend’s API surface, SendHQ removes switching friction entirely, then undercuts on price: $29 a month for unlimited sending across 200 domains is aggressive against anything comparable. Giving each agent a scoped key and a real inbox, with a human able to step in, is also a better answer to agent email than bolting a mail library onto a bot.
The honesty in the documentation deserves credit too. Refusing to convert provider acceptance into a delivery promise, and publishing an inspectable API contract before you pay, are both signals of a team that understands the category.
The risk is everything you cannot check. This is a 2026 product from a small company, with no independent reviews, no status page, no SLA, and no free tier to trial. Email infrastructure is the one dependency where an outage is immediately visible to your customers. The product looks well designed. Treat the operational track record as unproven and plan a fallback.
Suggestions For Improvement
- Add a free developer tier or a limited sandbox so buyers can test before paying.
- Publish a public status page with uptime history.
- State what “unlimited” means in practice, including any rate limits behind it.
- Offer SMTP relay alongside the API for legacy systems.
- Get listed on an independent review platform so reliability claims can be checked.
- Publish a written SLA or support response target for the Scale plan.
