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. Connic was designed as an agent platform from day one, EU-hosted under a German contract, with first-party Kafka, SQS, Stripe, Postgres, and email connectors instead of consumers you write yourself.
Inngest's durable execution engine is one of the best-regarded in its category: automatic retries, step-level recovery, and deterministic replay are hard problems, and Inngest solves them well. AgentKit, its open-source JS/TS agent framework, turns that engine into a home for multi-agent systems. If the evaluation were about engineering alone, this would be a close comparison.
For an EU buyer it is not close, because the first gate fails before features enter the picture: Inngest's security documentation states that all data is hosted in US-located AWS databases, with no EU region and no EU legal entity. Connic starts from the opposite premise, a German company with EU-hosted regions by default, and ships the agent production surface (judges, guardrails, approvals, A/B testing, cost tracking) that a durable workflow engine leaves for you to assemble.
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.
EU & Compliance
Managed EU data residency
Connic hosts EU-only by default. Inngest's security documentation states all data is hosted in US-located AWS databases; no EU region is offered.
EU contract counterparty
Connic contracts through a German company. Inngest has no EU legal entity.
EU AI Act tooling
Connic ships execution logs, human approvals, and guardrails mapped to deployer obligations. Inngest has no agent-level guardrail or approval surface.
Full production stack in one EU region
Connic's traces, judges, guardrails, and approvals live in one EU region. Inngest's stack lives in the US, and the agent primitives don't exist to co-locate.
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.
Human approvals (HITL)
Connic has a first-party approval queue. Inngest has no HITL approval surface.
Token usage tracking
Connic surfaces token usage at the platform level. With AgentKit it's surfaced through your own instrumentation.
Pricing Model
Subscription doubles as usage credit
A Connic plan is monthly usage credit (Developer €40, Pro €200, Enterprise custom) consumed at identical per-unit rates (€0.047/run, €0.00042/sec compute, €0.25/GB-month storage). Inngest is $0 Hobby, then Pro from $75/mo with 1M step executions and execution tiers above.
Bundled platform features
Connectors, evals, observability, memory, and vector storage on one plan with Connic. Inngest prices compute; you bring the rest.
The EU question
This one is short. Inngest's security documentation states that all data is hosted in US-located AWS databases. There is no EU region and no EU legal entity, which is why Inngest was dropped from our July 2026 EU shortlists: the first gate fails outright, before pricing or features enter the picture.
That is a documented hosting fact, not a judgment of the engineering. But if your agents' prompts and outputs contain EU personal data, no plan, configuration, or negotiation keeps them in the EU on Inngest today. Connic's answer is structural: a German contract counterparty, EU-hosted regions by default, and the whole production surface in one region under one DPA. For the platforms that do clear the gate, read the EU data residency shortlist, or see how Connic maps its features to the EU AI Act.
Where Inngest + AgentKit genuinely fits
Inngest's durable execution earns its reputation: automatic retries, step-level recovery, and deterministic replay are the flagship, and they are hard to build well. Its BYOK story is structural too, since Inngest executes your code and never intermediates your LLM calls, so keys stay in your environment by design. If you already run Inngest for background jobs, your stack is TypeScript, and your data can live in the US, AgentKit is a natural extension of infrastructure you trust.
The calculus changes when agents are the workload rather than a use case on top. Inngest ships durable compute, not agent infrastructure: no judges, no guardrails, no approval queue, no A/B testing, no token cost dashboards. And for an EU buyer the evaluation never gets that far, because the hosting gate fails first. That is the point where an EU-hosted agent platform stops being the alternative and starts being the default.
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, your data can live in the US, and Inngest's durable-execution model already fits, AgentKit is the natural next step. If you want an EU-hosted 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
- EU data residency and an EU contract counterparty are procurement requirements
- Your agent code is Python
- You need enterprise connectors (Kafka, SQS, Stripe, Postgres, Email) without writing consumers
- You want evals, approvals, memory, and vector storage included, not assembled
Use Inngest + AgentKit when
- You already run Inngest for background jobs and want agents next to them
- Your data can live in US-hosted infrastructure without a compliance problem
- 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
Frequently Asked Questions
Bring the workflow, trigger source, compliance constraints, and deployment path you are evaluating. We will help separate what Inngest + AgentKit should handle from what belongs in a managed agent runtime.
Compare with SalesStill shortlisting? Here are the others.
Head-to-head comparisons against the platforms most teams weigh alongside Connic. For the full field, survey the 2026 agent deployment platform landscape.
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 framework, now in maintenance mode with the Agent Framework as its successor. Either way: a framework you host, not a runtime with a home.
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.