Trigger.dev vs Inngest 2026: OSS Durable Runners Compared
Trigger.dev (2022, London) is a fully Apache 2.0 durable runner with task-based authoring, machine-size selection, and first-class self-host. Inngest (2021, San Francisco) is a developer-first event-driven step platform with an open-source dev server and a managed cloud (50K step runs/month free, Pro from $99/month). This 2026 comparison covers license, programming model, pricing, observability, and self-host options.
The Bottom Line: Trigger.dev wins on Apache 2.0 license and first-class self-host; Inngest wins on event-driven step semantics and zero-ops managed cloud. Choose by license requirement and programming-model preference.
Overview
Trigger.dev and Inngest are two open-source-friendly durable runners that emerged from the 2021-2024 wave of TypeScript-first background-jobs platforms. Both target application developers who need retryable, observable, long-running tasks alongside their web frameworks (Next.js, Remix, Express, Astro, SvelteKit). The differences come down to license, programming model, pricing structure, and how each product treats orchestration versus background jobs.
Trigger.dev was founded in 2022 by Eric Allam and Matt Aitken in London and is licensed Apache 2.0 across the platform (open-source self-host is a first-class deployment option). Inngest was founded in 2021 by Tony Holdstock-Brown in San Francisco; the Inngest dev server is open-source (Apache 2.0) and the production cloud is managed and proprietary.
Programming Model
Trigger.dev v3 (released 2024) uses task-based authoring with retries, concurrency limits, and machine-size selection per task. The mental model is closest to background jobs with structured I/O, dependency declarations, and a CLI deploy. Tasks declared in TypeScript code are compiled and deployed to the Trigger.dev runtime, where they execute on dedicated machines.
Inngest uses event-driven step authoring. A function listens on an event (or schedule), then runs sequential or parallel step.run, step.sleep, step.waitForEvent, and step.sendEvent calls. Each step is independently retryable and checkpointed. Code is invoked over HTTP from the Inngest runtime, which means it can run on Vercel, Netlify, Fly.io, AWS Lambda, or a traditional server.
License and Self-Host
Trigger.dev is fully Apache 2.0 across the platform. Self-hosting is supported via Docker Compose or Kubernetes; the open-source distribution includes the dashboard, the runtime, and the registry. The Trigger.dev Cloud is a managed deployment of the same open-source code.
Inngest open-sources the dev server (used for local development). The production cloud is managed and proprietary. Self-hosted production Inngest is available on enterprise plans, but the OSS distribution is narrower than Trigger.dev's. For teams that want a fully open-source self-hostable production runner, Trigger.dev is the better fit.
Pricing (May 2026)
| Tier | Trigger.dev | Inngest |
|---|---|---|
| Free | Hobby tier with limited runs and machine hours | 50,000 step runs/month, 3 concurrent runs |
| Entry | Pro from $20/month, additional run and machine fees | Hobby $20/month, 200K steps |
| Mid | Pro tiers scale by run volume and machine size | Pro $50-$500/month tiers |
| Scale | Enterprise self-host (Apache 2.0) | Enterprise quote, self-host option on plan |
Both products use usage-based pricing tied to compute and run volume. Trigger.dev pricing is more transparent for self-host (zero license cost; pay infrastructure only). Inngest pricing on managed cloud is generally lower at equivalent step volume but locks the runtime to the managed product.
Observability
Both products ship a real-time dashboard with run history, log streaming, retry inspection, and trigger replay. Trigger.dev exposes machine-level metrics (memory, duration, concurrency) per task. Inngest exposes step-level metrics with event-stream context and built-in waiting/event-correlation views.
When to Choose Trigger.dev
- Apache 2.0 license is decisive for compliance, sovereignty, or open-source policy
- Self-host on the team's own infrastructure is a first-class requirement
- Task-based mental model maps cleanly to existing background-jobs code
- Long-running compute tasks (video processing, batch ML, scraping) benefit from machine-size selection
When to Choose Inngest
- Event-driven step authoring fits the workflow shape better than task-based jobs
- Managed cloud with zero ops is the priority
- Workflows need explicit step.waitForEvent, step.sleep, and step-level retries as primitives
- TypeScript or Python SDK with HTTP-invoked execution suits the existing deployment platform (Vercel, Netlify, Fly.io)
Verdict
Trigger.dev wins on license openness and self-host story; Inngest wins on event-driven step semantics and managed-cloud ergonomics. For most TypeScript application teams without a hard self-host requirement, the choice comes down to programming model preference, not feature gaps.
Editor's Note: We have shipped both. A 2026 client engagement at a regulated medical-imaging company (50-person engineering team) chose Trigger.dev because the Apache 2.0 license cleared their open-source policy and the self-host story let them run inside their existing Kubernetes cluster; we deployed via Helm in two days. A separate engagement at a mid-stage SaaS (15-person team, 4M durable runs/month) chose Inngest because the event-driven step model matched their existing webhook-driven architecture and the managed cloud meant zero infrastructure work; cost landed around $200/month at their volume. Honest caveat: Trigger.dev v3 was a substantial rewrite released in late 2024, and some 2023-era v2 documentation still circulates online; verify version coverage before relying on community examples.
Tools Mentioned
Trigger.dev
Open-source background jobs and durable workflows platform for TypeScript developers.
Workflow AutomationInngest
Durable workflow and background job platform for TypeScript and Python services.
Workflow AutomationHatchet
Open-source distributed task queue and workflow engine for Python, TypeScript, and Go services.
Workflow AutomationTemporal Workflows
Build applications that never lose state, even when everything else fails.
Workflow AutomationRelated Guides
Moxo vs Gumloop in 2026: Texting the Client, or Building the Agent
Gumloop (founded 2023) builds AI agents a company's own staff run; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, runs processes that wait on people outside the company. Gumloop wins three rounds to two: the way in, per-tool gating and a priced overage. Moxo wins on…
Moxo vs Relay.app in 2026: Where Relay's Approval Workflows Can Go Next
Relay.app, founded in 2021, shut down in September 2026 and deleted every account, workflow and run history; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, is one destination for its human-in-the-loop users. Relay.app takes two rounds, Moxo one, and vendor risk is a draw…
Moxo vs Workato in 2026: The Integration Estate, or the Approval Inside It
Workato, founded in 2013, is an enterprise integration platform whose Workflow apps add human tasks to recipes; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, ships the human step itself. Workato wins three rounds to two: connector reach, change control and the way in…
Related 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…
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…
Common Questions
How do banks and wealth firms use Moxo for client onboarding?
Moxo's financial-services page (read 13 October 2026) pitches account opening and KYC reviews as shared work: the client gets a secure link to see what is needed and sign, while relationship managers, compliance and operations staff review and approve inside one tracked flow. The…
Can healthcare teams run patient-facing workflows on Moxo?
Yes for coordination work, once a signed BAA is in hand: Moxo told Automation Atlas in writing on 6 October 2026 that it signs BAAs, but it publishes none and did not say which plans the agreement covers or whether it reaches Moxo AI. Moxo says it has no native EHR, HL7 or FHIR…
Who is accountable when an AI agent acts in a Moxo workflow?
The company that deploys the agent is accountable: Moxo's Terms and Conditions (read 13 October 2026) make the customer "solely responsible for any AI Content, including the accuracy, quality, appropriateness, and legality thereof". In the workflow, a named person owns each human…
How does Moxo keep humans in control when AI agents run a workflow?
Moxo keeps people on the decisions by design: approvals and other human steps are ones its product page says "only a person can close", and AI agents can fill preparer, advisor or reviewer slots around them (both read 15 September 2026). The checks on AI output are opt-in…