Softwr

Automation Integration · head to head

Nango vs VerneMQ

Nango logo

Nango

Automation Integration

Open source unified API and OAuth infrastructure for product integrations, licensed under Elastic License 2.0

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
VerneMQ logo

VerneMQ

Databases

Erlang MQTT broker whose source is Apache 2.0 but whose official binaries need a paid subscription

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Nango the licence is Elastic License 2.0, which is source available rather than OSI open source, and it forbids offering Nango to third parties as a managed service, so anyone planning to resell or embed it in a platform for their own customers has a genuine legal problem.; VerneMQ the official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • They diverge on capability: Nango covers Managed OAuth, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Nango and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Nango and VerneMQ differ
AttributeNangoVerneMQ
Pricing modelPer connection per monthquote
PlatformsWeb, Linux, DockerLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes
CategoryAutomation IntegrationDatabases

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

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 Nango

  • Managed OAuth
  • Pre-built integrations
  • Custom syncs and actions
  • Incremental sync
  • Rate limit and retry handling
  • Webhooks
  • Self-hosting
  • Unified models

Only in VerneMQ

  • Erlang/OTP clustering
  • MQTT 5.0 support
  • Plugin system
  • Backpressure handling
  • Bridge support
  • Metrics export
  • MQTT over WebSockets
  • Pluggable auth backends

What people use each for

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

Nango

  • A SaaS product that needs to ship twenty customer-facing integrations without hiring a team to maintain OAuth and token refresh for eachnot VerneMQ
  • A team that needs a niche or internal API integrated, which closed unified API vendors will not build for themnot VerneMQ
  • A company with data residency or security constraints that must self-host the integration layer rather than send customer tokens to a vendornot VerneMQ
  • An engineering team replacing a homegrown integration service whose main cost is silent token expiry and rate limit failures in productionnot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

  • An industrial operator that wants an MQTT broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not usenot Nango
  • A team building from source to stay strictly under Apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglementnot Nango
  • A deployment needing custom authentication logic implemented as a plugin in Lua or over a webhooknot Nango
  • An organisation that wants a broker maintained by a small European company rather than by a vendor that keeps changing licencesnot Nango

Where each one falls short

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

Nango

  • The licence is Elastic License 2.0, which is source available rather than OSI open source, and it forbids offering Nango to third parties as a managed service, so anyone planning to resell or embed it in a platform for their own customers has a genuine legal problem.
  • Pricing is per connection where a connection is one authorised end-user account, so cost scales linearly with your customer base and a product where each user links several services multiplies quickly beyond what a headline plan price suggests.
  • Pre-built integrations vary in depth, and a connection that exists is not the same as a connection that covers the endpoints and objects your feature needs, so each one must be verified before it is designed into a roadmap.
  • Custom syncs are written in TypeScript and run in Nango model, which means integration logic lives in a vendor runtime and migrating away later requires rewriting it rather than lifting it out.
  • Self-hosting removes the vendor from the data path but transfers operational responsibility for a component that holds customer OAuth tokens, and few teams appreciate the security burden that comes with running that themselves.

VerneMQ

  • The official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • Octavo Labs is a very small company, so support depth, response times and the bus factor on the codebase are materially thinner than at HiveMQ or EMQ.
  • There is no data integration or rule engine layer, so routing messages into a database means writing and operating your own consumer service.
  • Operating an Erlang cluster requires runtime knowledge that most teams do not have and will use for nothing else in their stack.
  • There is no vendor-managed cloud offering, so every deployment is self-operated with the infrastructure and on-call cost that implies.

Pricing, plan by plan

Nango

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 10 connections
    • Pre-built integrations
    • Managed OAuth
  • Starter$50/month
    • 20 connections included
    • 1 USD per additional connection
    • Custom syncs and actions
  • Growth$500/month
    • 100 connections included
    • 1 USD per additional connection
    • Higher limits
  • Enterprise$undefined/month
    • Quoted
    • Custom connection volumes
    • Security review and SLA

VerneMQ

Free
  • Source buildFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed source from GitHub
    • Full clustering and plugin capability
    • You compile and package it yourself
  • Binary packages and Docker images$undefined/year
    • Covered by the VerneMQ EULA, not Apache 2.0
    • Yearly usage subscription expected for commercial use
    • Official builds and Docker images
  • Commercial support$undefined/year
    • Evaluation, customisation and operations assistance
    • Custom development
    • Long-term maintenance agreements

Which should you pick?

Choose Nango if

  • You need managed oauth.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, Linux, Docker.
  • You also want pre-built integrations.
Nango review

Choose VerneMQ if

  • You need erlang/otp clustering.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
  • You also want mqtt 5.0 support.
VerneMQ review

Questions people ask

Is Nango or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Nango starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Nango or VerneMQ?
Nango starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does Nango or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Nango runs on Web, Linux, Docker. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use Nango for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Nango best used for?
Nango is most often used for a saas product that needs to ship twenty customer-facing integrations without hiring a team to maintain oauth and token refresh for each, a team that needs a niche or internal api integrated, which closed unified api vendors will not build for them, a company with data residency or security constraints that must self-host the integration layer rather than send customer tokens to a vendor, an engineering team replacing a homegrown integration service whose main cost is silent token expiry and rate limit failures in production. Of those, a saas product that needs to ship twenty customer-facing integrations without hiring a team to maintain oauth and token refresh for each and a team that needs a niche or internal api integrated, which closed unified api vendors will not build for them are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Nango do that VerneMQ cannot?
Nango covers Managed OAuth, Pre-built integrations, Custom syncs and actions, Incremental sync. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Nango: Is Nango open source?

It is source available under Elastic License 2.0. You can read, modify and self-host it, but you cannot offer it to third parties as a managed service. That is not the same as an OSI approved open source licence.

VerneMQ: Is VerneMQ free?

The source is Apache 2.0 and free. The official binary packages and Docker images are covered by a separate EULA that expects a yearly fee for commercial use.

Nango: How is it priced?

Per connection per month, where a connection is one authorised end-user account. Free to 10 connections, 50 dollars a month for Starter with 20, 500 for Growth with 100, and one dollar per additional connection.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

Yes. Octavo Labs AG in Zurich continues to publish 2.x releases, most recently in 2026.

Nango: Can we integrate an API Nango does not support?

Yes. Custom syncs and actions in TypeScript cover any API including internal ones, which is the main advantage over closed unified API products.

VerneMQ: Does it have a managed cloud?

No. Every deployment is self-hosted, with commercial support available from Octavo Labs.

Nango: Can we self-host it?

Yes, under the Elastic License 2.0 terms, which permit self-hosting for your own use but not resale as a service.

VerneMQ: How does it compare to EMQX?

Narrower in features and without a rule engine, but with a simpler licence story for source builds after EMQX moved to BSL.

Share

Related pages

More on Nango

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads