Agent-native, not a workflow engine with an agent library on top
Inngest is a great durable execution platform. AgentKit is a solid framework. Together they give you agents — but through a workflow-first runtime. Connic was built as an agent platform from day one, with first-party connectors (Kafka, SQS, Stripe, Postgres, Email) instead of consumers you write yourself.
Feature Comparison
See how Connic stacks up against Inngest + AgentKit across key capabilities.
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
Key advantages that make Connic the better choice for production AI agents.
The Bottom Line
If you already love Inngest's durable execution model and live in JS/TS, AgentKit is a natural extension. If you want an agent platform with connectors and evals included, Connic is the better 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
Compare Connic to other platforms
Evaluating alternatives? These head-to-head comparisons cover the other platforms most teams consider.
Connic vs Agentuity
Purpose-built agent infrastructure with pure usage-based pricing. Flexible, but awkward for teams that need a predictable budget.
Connic vs Trigger.dev
Open-source, git-first background job platform now shipping AI Agents and Realtime support. Great if jobs are your core; agents need memory and evals out of the box.
Connic vs LangChain
Open-source LLM framework with 600+ integrations. Great building blocks, but requires self-hosting and DevOps work.
Connic vs AutoGen
Microsoft's multi-agent conversation framework. Powerful for research, but no production hosting included.
Connic vs CrewAI
Role-based agent orchestration with YAML config. Similar approach, but Connic adds enterprise connectors and hosting.
Connic vs Self-Hosting
Running agents on your own Kubernetes or cloud infrastructure. Full control, but full DevOps burden.