An agent runtime — not a workflow engine with agents bolted on
Inngest is a strong durable-execution platform; AgentKit is a capable framework on top. Together they get you to agents through a workflow-first runtime. Connic was designed as an agent platform from day one, with first-party Kafka, SQS, Stripe, Postgres, and email connectors instead of consumers you write yourself.
Feature Comparison
Connic vs Inngest + AgentKit, capability by capability.
Product Shape
Agent-native runtime
Connic is an agent platform. Inngest is a durable execution platform; AgentKit is a framework that runs on it.
YAML-based agent config
Connic uses declarative YAML + Python. AgentKit is code-only (TypeScript / JavaScript).
Python support
Connic is Python-first. AgentKit's documented SDK is JS/TS; Inngest has a Python SDK but AgentKit itself is JS/TS.
Durable execution
Both offer durability for long-running agent runs. Inngest's durable-execution engine is its flagship capability.
MCP tool support
Both support MCP-compatible tools.
Deployment & Operations
Managed hosting included
Both offer managed hosting. Connic includes it in every paid plan; Inngest's Hobby tier runs 50K executions/mo free.
Environment management (dev / staging / prod)
Both support branch / staging environments. Inngest's branch environments are unlimited from Hobby up.
Secrets management
Both provide first-party secrets handling per environment.
Integrations & Triggers
Webhook triggers
Both support webhook-triggered runs. Inngest treats them as generic event sources.
Cron scheduling
Both include cron scheduling. Inngest's cron is part of its scheduled-function model.
First-party Kafka connector
Connic has a first-party Kafka connector. With Inngest you publish events yourself from a Kafka consumer.
First-party SQS connector
Connic has a first-party SQS connector. With Inngest you build the consumer.
First-party Email connector
Connic has a first-party email connector. Inngest requires external inbound email handling.
First-party Stripe connector
Connic has a first-party Stripe connector. Inngest uses generic webhooks.
First-party Postgres connector
Connic has a first-party Postgres connector. Inngest is compute, not data.
Observability & Evals
Tracing and run history
Both include tracing. Inngest Pro retains traces for 7 days; Enterprise for 90 days.
Built-in agent evals / judges
Connic ships a first-party judge service. Inngest has logs and traces; eval workflows are something you build on top.
Token usage tracking
Connic surfaces token usage at the platform level. With AgentKit it's surfaced through your own instrumentation.
Pricing Model
Tier-based pricing
Connic: $0 / $390 / $2,499 / $7,999 flat. Inngest: $0 Hobby, $75+ Pro — with execution tiers on top ($0.000050 down to $0.000015 per execution).
Bundled platform features
Connectors, evals, observability, memory, and vector storage on one plan with Connic. Inngest prices compute; you bring the rest.
Why teams choose Connic
What you get on day one — without writing connectors, wiring observability, or running infrastructure.
The Bottom Line
If your stack is JS/TS and Inngest's durable-execution model already fits, AgentKit is the natural next step. If you want an agent runtime with connectors and evals included, Connic is the closer fit.
Use Connic when
- You want an agent-native platform, not a workflow engine repurposed for agents
- Your agent code is Python
- You need enterprise connectors (Kafka, SQS, Stripe, Postgres, Email) without writing consumers
- You want evals, memory, and vector storage included, not assembled
- You prefer flat plan pricing over per-execution tiering
Use Inngest + AgentKit when
- You already run Inngest for background jobs and want agents next to them
- Your stack is JavaScript/TypeScript and you like AgentKit's multi-agent networks
- Durable execution is your core requirement and agents are a use case on top
- You prefer a framework you compose yourself over an opinionated platform
- You want to pay per execution rather than per plan
Still shortlisting? Here are the others.
Head-to-head comparisons against the platforms most teams weigh alongside Connic.
Connic vs Agentuity
Purpose-built agent infrastructure on pure usage-based pricing. Flexible — but hard to forecast when finance needs a number.
Connic vs Trigger.dev
Open-source, git-first background-job platform now shipping AI Agents and Realtime. Strong if jobs are the core — thinner if your agents need memory, evals, and connectors out of the box.
Connic vs LangChain
Open-source LLM framework with 600+ integrations. Rich building blocks — you bring the hosting, scaling, and DevOps.
Connic vs AutoGen
Microsoft's multi-agent conversation framework. Strong for research and prototyping — no production hosting included.
Connic vs CrewAI
Role-based agent orchestration with YAML config. Same philosophy as Connic — Connic adds first-party connectors and managed hosting in every plan.
Connic vs Self-Hosting
Running agents on your own Kubernetes or cloud. Total control — and the full DevOps, on-call, and compliance bill.