Softwr

Automation Integration · head to head

Hatchet vs Inngest

Hatchet logo

Hatchet

Automation Integration

Postgres-backed distributed task queue and workflow engine for Python, TypeScript and Go

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Inngest logo

Inngest

Automation Integration

Unbreakable Agents. Invisible Infra.

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Hatchet postgres as the queue backend simplifies operations but sets a throughput ceiling, and very high task rates require database tuning or partitioning work that a purpose-built queue would not demand.; Inngest hobby plans pause execution once free quota exhausted; upgrade required to continue
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Hatchet and Inngest actually diverge.

Attributes where Hatchet and Inngest differ
AttributeHatchetInngest
Pricing modelPer month by task run countfreemium
PlatformsLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, CloudWeb

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Automation Integration).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Hatchet

  • Postgres-backed queue
  • Durable execution
  • DAG workflows
  • Concurrency and fairness
  • Rate limiting
  • Cron and scheduling
  • Multi-language SDKs
  • Self-hosting

Only in Inngest

Nothing recorded that Hatchet does not also cover.

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Hatchet

  • An AI product running long agent pipelines that must survive worker restarts and resume mid-workflownot Inngest
  • A team that outgrew Celery and wants concurrency keys, fairness and rate limiting without building themnot Inngest
  • An engineering group that wants durable execution self-hosted with no datastore beyond the Postgres they already runnot Inngest
  • A multi-tenant SaaS that needs one noisy customer's jobs not to starve everyone else'snot Inngest

Inngest

  • Handling unpredictable LLM behavior with fine-grained error controlnot Hatchet
  • Retrying failed workflow steps independently without restartingnot Hatchet
  • Rate limiting per-tenant usage on shared infrastructurenot Hatchet
  • Processing thousands of webhooks per event with replay capabilitynot Hatchet
  • Persisting state across serverless function invocationsnot Hatchet

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Hatchet

  • Postgres as the queue backend simplifies operations but sets a throughput ceiling, and very high task rates require database tuning or partitioning work that a purpose-built queue would not demand.
  • Data retention on the managed tiers is three days on Team and seven on Scale, which is short for debugging intermittent failures and forces you to export run history elsewhere.
  • The step from the free tier to Team is 500 US dollars a month plus usage, which is a large increment for a small team that simply needs a production SLA.
  • Hatchet is a young company in a category with Temporal, Inngest and cloud-native alternatives already established, so ecosystem, hiring pool and third-party material are all thin.
  • Self-hosting the MIT engine is realistic but you then run the engine, its Postgres and its workers yourself, and the managed features such as audit logs and support are not part of that.

Inngest

  • Hobby plans pause execution once free quota exhausted; upgrade required to continue
  • Pro plan overages carry tiered metering: additional concurrent steps at $25 per 25, span data at $3/GB, scores at $1.50 per 1K, events at $0.50 per 1M

Pricing, plan by plan

Hatchet

Free
  • DeveloperFree
    • First 100,000 task runs included
    • $10 per million task runs after
    • No card required
  • Team$500/month
    • Usage billed on top of the base fee
    • 10 users and 5 tenants
    • 3 day data retention
  • Scale$1000/month
    • Unlimited users and tenants
    • 7 day data retention
    • Audit logs
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • 300 million plus runs a month
    • Latency guarantees and custom SLAs
    • SSO and audit logging

Inngest

Free
  • HobbyFree
    • 50k executions/month
    • 5 concurrent steps
    • 500 MB span data
  • Pro$99/month starting
    • 1M executions included, pay-as-you-go up to 20M
    • 100+ concurrent steps
    • 5 GB span data ingested
  • Enterprise$null/custom
    • customizable metrics
    • 90-day trace retention
    • SAML, RBAC, audit trails

Which should you pick?

Choose Hatchet if

  • You need postgres-backed queue.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
  • You also want durable execution.
Hatchet review

Choose Inngest if

  • You want to start without paying.
Inngest review

Questions people ask

Is Hatchet or Inngest better?
Neither clearly leads. Hatchet starts at Free and Inngest at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Hatchet or Inngest?
Hatchet starts at Free and Inngest at Free.
Does Hatchet or Inngest run on more platforms?
Hatchet runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud. Inngest runs on Web.
Can I use Hatchet for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Hatchet best used for?
Hatchet is most often used for an ai product running long agent pipelines that must survive worker restarts and resume mid-workflow, a team that outgrew celery and wants concurrency keys, fairness and rate limiting without building them, an engineering group that wants durable execution self-hosted with no datastore beyond the postgres they already run, a multi-tenant saas that needs one noisy customer's jobs not to starve everyone else's. Of those, an ai product running long agent pipelines that must survive worker restarts and resume mid-workflow and a team that outgrew celery and wants concurrency keys, fairness and rate limiting without building them are not what Inngest is typically brought in for.
What can Hatchet do that Inngest cannot?
Hatchet covers Postgres-backed queue, Durable execution, DAG workflows, Concurrency and fairness.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Hatchet: Is Hatchet open source?

Yes, the engine is MIT licensed and can be self-hosted, with a managed cloud offered alongside.

Inngest: How much does Inngest cost?

Inngest offers a free Hobby plan with 50k executions per month and up to 3 users. Pro plans start at $99 per month with 1M executions included and support for up to 15 users. Additional Pro users cost $10 each. Enterprise plans require custom pricing.

Source
Hatchet: What does it cost?

Free for the first 100,000 task runs, then 10 US dollars per million. Team is 500 US dollars a month plus usage; Scale is 1,000.

Inngest: Is there a free version of Inngest?

Yes, the Hobby plan is completely free and includes 50k executions per month, 5 concurrent steps, 500 MB span data ingested, 10K scores, 500k events ingested, and support for up to 3 users. Plan changes pause execution once the free quota is exhausted.

Source
Hatchet: Why Postgres as the queue?

So durable task state lives in a database your team already backs up, replicates and can inspect with SQL, instead of a second system.

Inngest: What are the overage costs on Inngest Pro?

Inngest Pro includes 1M executions with additional executions at $0.50 per 1M up to 20M. Span data overages cost $3 per GB, scores at $1.50 per 1K, and events at $0.50 per 1M. Additional concurrent steps cost $25 per 25 steps beyond the included 100+.

Source
Hatchet: How does it compare with Temporal?

Lighter to adopt and operate, with a much smaller ecosystem and a lower throughput ceiling from the Postgres backend.

Share

Related pages

More on Hatchet

More on Inngest

Keep looking

Other head to heads