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 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.
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, 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.
Common Questions
Can you automate a platform with no API using Zapier?
Not as a proper Zapier app. Zapier's help centre, updated 29 May 2026, says a private app can be built "for any service with a public API", and its fallbacks for a missing app are email parsing, RSS, webhooks, asking Zapier to add the app, or using a different app. Those let a no-API platform tell a Zap that something happened; none of them lets a Zap act inside the platform. The Zapier Agents Chrome extension can "run actions" on a page open in your own browser (help article updated 27 April 2026), but that is hands-on help, not a reusable Zap step.
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, though. In synthetic AutomationAtlas tests that day, an AI extract step's "Human review" and "Supervisor Agent" switches were both off by default, and the builder accepted the same role as a form's submitter and its approver.
How much does Moxo cost in 2026?
Moxo's only published price is Team: $5,000 a year, billed annually with no monthly option, for 100 flows and $100 of AI a year with unlimited seats (moxo.com/pricing, 28 September 2026). Scale (500 flows and $500 of AI a year) and Enterprise are custom quotes. There is no free plan, no published overage rate and no stated trial length, and the dollar AI allowance has no published conversion to the credits Moxo's product logs.
What is Moxo?
Moxo AI (app.moxo.com) is a process orchestration platform from Moxo, formerly Moxtra, for work where several parties, approvals and documents meet. You build templates of human steps, AI steps and automations, each run is a Flow with its own data and status, and outsiders act through account-free Magic Links. Its only published price is Team, and the AI agents start on the custom-quoted Scale plan (moxo.com/pricing, 15 September 2026). It is not Moxo Classic, the older app.