Temporal Cloud vs self-hosted: which should you choose in 2026?
Quick Answer: Temporal Cloud is managed durable execution with 99.9-99.95% SLA starting around $200/month at low volume, suited to teams without Cassandra ops experience. Self-hosted Temporal is Apache 2.0 open source with realistic infrastructure cost of $2,500-$4,500/month plus operational labor, suited to high-volume workloads or compliance-driven deployments.
Temporal Cloud vs Self-Hosted: Direct Comparison
Temporal (founded 2019) is offered as Temporal Cloud (managed) and as Temporal Server (Apache 2.0 open-source self-host). Both run the same codebase; the difference is who operates the persistence layer and the services.
Pricing (May 2026)
Temporal Cloud Standard pricing is consumption-based: $25/M Actions plus Active Storage and Retained Storage GB-month. Small-medium production deployments land in $200-$2,000/month; high-volume deployments can exceed $50,000/month. Mission Critical tier adds higher SLA at roughly 2x consumption multiplier.
Self-hosted is Apache 2.0 license-free; cost is infrastructure + labor. A typical small production self-host runs $2,500-$4,500/month for Cassandra cluster, Temporal services, Elasticsearch, backups, and monitoring, plus 0.25-1.0 FTE operational time.
Crossover Point
Self-hosted becomes cost-competitive at roughly 30-50M Actions/month for organizations that already operate Kubernetes and Cassandra. Below that volume, Cloud is almost always cheaper once labor is included.
When Each Wins
Cloud wins for low-to-moderate volume, teams without Cassandra experience, and standard SOC 2/HIPAA compliance needs. Self-hosted wins for compliance/data residency that rules out multi-tenant cloud, very high action volume where consumption pricing exceeds infrastructure cost, and teams that already operate Cassandra at scale.
Related Questions
Related Tools
Temporal Workflows
Build applications that never lose state, even when everything else fails.
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationBardeen
AI-powered browser automation via Chrome extension
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best Human-in-the-Loop Automation Platforms 2026
Eight platforms are ranked here on a single mechanism: how a person enters an automated path, and what the system can prove afterward about the decision they made. Moxo scores 7.7 and ranks first; Camunda 8 scores 7.2, Microsoft Power Automate 7.1, Pega 6.9, n8n 6.7, Zapier 5.9, Kissflow 5.8 and ServiceNow 4.8, scored 22 September 2026 on the five weighted criteria. Those criteria cover the step type, the approver's account or licence, the routes available on a rejection, the audit record, and the meter that charges for the decision, and none of them can tell a review from a rubber stamp, so the methodology adds a check readers can run on any product in a few minutes: whether the decision record tells a considered approval from an instant one. Every figure was read from a vendor-owned surface and carries its own date.
Best Automation Platforms for AI Orchestration 2026
This ranking answers one question: how many real business applications can an AI agent act on out of the box? It evaluates nine platforms as of August 2026 on the reach they give an agent, not on the workflow logic they can express. That boundary is deliberate, because two neighbouring pages on this site answer different questions. Best Process Orchestration Platforms 2026 scores multi-step process control, error handling and state management. Best AI Agent Platforms 2026 scores building and hosting the agent itself. This page scores the layer between them: the connective tissue that lets an agent already built elsewhere reach the applications a business actually runs on. A platform that leads one of those pages can place low here, and two of them do. Scores derive from application and action catalogue counts, the exposure model each platform uses to publish those catalogues to an agent, setup effort, failure handling and cost per agent action. Every figure was retrieved from a vendor-owned surface on 11 August 2026 unless an earlier date is stated against it.
Dive Deeper
Moxo vs Lindy in 2026: Who Presses Approve When the Agent Asks
Lindy, founded in 2023, sells an AI teammate that lives in Slack and in each person's inbox; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, runs multi-party processes where approvals are steps only a person can close. Moxo wins three rounds to two: who closes the step, work across companies and the record. Lindy wins reach and testing. Vendor pages and docs read 28 September 2026.
Moxo vs Kissflow in 2026: What an Outside Approver Costs, and What the Record Proves
Moxo and Kissflow both sell approvals to people who do not write code, and each wins one round outright: Moxo's Web and Headless SDKs run the approval inside the buyer's own product, under the buyer's own sign-in. Kissflow's portal audit log stamps every event with an actor, a device and an IP, where Moxo publishes no field list. Both answers are quoted, not priced, and both meters punish a one-step request sent to hundreds of clients. Cost, the decision record, rejection routes, AI metering and governance, verified 14 to 23 September 2026.
Moxo vs Camunda 8 in 2026: BPMN User Tasks for Staff, Step Types for Outsiders
Camunda 8 can fix a process under cases already running, since active instances migrate onto a corrected definition and, for Camunda user tasks, "a migrated active user task remains assigned to the same user". Moxo keeps the shared queue that Camunda's Tasklist V2 stops evaluating, with desks that are "a shared inbox that multiple users can pick work from". Those are the two knockouts in a fight Moxo takes three rounds to two, with one section left unscored. Portability, AI review gates and a published price decide the rest, verified 14 to 23 September 2026.