![Yurii L.](/assets/transparent-ad5be28fbcd25b7b08d2cebe1d957125437fb5407d75ee717965ad22c8808791.gif "Yurii L.") YL Yurii L. .NET Technology Lead Information Technology and Services Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.) 8/20/2026 "Typeform webhooks kept our .NET workflows out of manual exports" 4.5/5 What do you like best about Typeform? Branching Logic and Logic Map let us create different paths without forcing every user through questions that don’t apply to them. Operations can tweak copy and smaller conditions without waiting for another deployment, while the form still handles calculations, scoring, and different Endings based on responses. On the technical side, it’s been clean enough for our .NET workflows. We use Webhooks to send each submission directly to an ASP.NET Core endpoint, verify the HMAC signature, and then process the payload on our side. Depending on the setup and plan, Typeform can trigger webhooks for completed submissions and, in some cases, partial responses, with retries when the endpoint fails. When we need to query data later, we use the Responses API, and the Create API gives us a way to manage forms programmatically. The Embed SDK has also been helpful when the form needs to live inside an application or portal, without making it feel like the user has been sent somewhere completely different. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com. What do you dislike about Typeform? The Create and Responses APIs currently allow two requests per second per account. That hasn’t been an issue for our normal integrations, but I wouldn’t design a high-volume synchronization workflow around polling individual responses in real time. For that kind of workload, webhooks, queues, and idempotent processing are a much safer fit than repeatedly querying the API to see what changed. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com. What problems is Typeform solving and how is that benefiting you? We used Typeform for a partner onboarding flow that needed company information, technical contacts, billing details, and integration requirements. Our original internal form had grown to nearly forty fields for every user, and even a small wording change meant frontend work, QA, and another deployment. We rebuilt the flow using Branching Logic based on country, company type, and integration method, then embedded it in the portal with the Embed SDK. After submission, a signed Webhook hit our ASP.NET Core endpoint. From there, we verified the signature, revalidated the key fields, and published a message to our queue before creating the partner record. That first version also reinforced why I don’t like putting all business protection in the form layer. One incorrect condition sent a small group of users straight to the final screen without collecting a required tax field. We fixed the route in the Logic Map, but we also added definitive validation in the backend so a future form mistake couldn’t create invalid partner data. Overall, Typeform gave operations room to iterate without waiting on engineering, while the rules that actually mattered stayed inside .NET services we could test, trace, and deploy alongside the rest of the application. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com. Show More Response from Grace Porter of Typeform [Editedit](https://www.g2.com/survey_responses/typeform-review-13333858/official_response/edit) Hi Yurii, thank you for sharing your detailed feedback on Typeform's features and APIs. We're glad to hear that the Branching Logic and Logic Map have been valuable for creating different paths and that the Webhooks have seamlessly integrated with your .NET workflows. We appreciate your input on the limitations of the Create and Responses APIs and understand the importance of high-volume synchronization workflows. We're continuously working to improve our platform and will take your feedback into consideration. Current UserValidated ReviewerIncentivizedSource: G2 invite See what 993 reviewers think of Typeform 4.5 out of 5 · Verified reviews from real users [ Read all reviews ](https://www.g2.com/products/typeform/reviews)