Ship agents, not infrastructure tickets
Self-hosting gives you direct infrastructure control, and the operational burden with it. Connic keeps its platform data and connic/* inference in the EU under a German contract, with connectors, tracing, and guardrails included.
Self-hosting is the traditional answer to the residency question, and it is an honest one: run the agents on infrastructure you control, in a region you choose, and control where the self-hosted runtime stores its data. Cloud, model, and tool providers still have their own data flows. For teams whose policies require operating the runtime themselves, self-hosting may be a requirement.
The catch is that self-hosting moves the problem rather than shrinking it. Your organization remains responsible for the runtime, upgrades, incident response, and any production services not included by the chosen framework. The organization can operate those services itself or buy them from vendors. Connic offers a managed path under a German contract: its platform data and connic/* inference stay in the EU, while full-Project residency remains a configuration outcome.
Feature Comparison
Connic vs Self-Hosting, capability by capability.
Time to Production
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| First agent deployedConnic includes managed deployment. A production Kubernetes baseline needs cluster and workload setup unless that platform already exists. | Yes | Partial |
| CI/CD pipelineBuilt into Connic. A self-hosted deployment uses the organization's existing CI/CD system or requires one to be configured. | Yes | Partial |
| Container orchestrationManaged by Connic. This page uses Kubernetes as the production baseline, while Docker, VM, and managed-container options require different operational skills. | Yes | Partial |
| Zero cold startsConnic manages startup behavior. Cold starts in a self-hosted deployment depend on the runtime, scaling policy, image size, and capacity configuration. | Yes | Partial |
EU & Compliance
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| EU data residencyBoth can get there. Self-hosting on EU infrastructure gives you direct control. Connic keeps its platform data and connic/* inference in the EU; full-Project residency depends on your deployment region and configured components. | Yes | Yes |
| Single German counterparty for the agent stackConnic puts the runtime, traces, judges, and guardrails under one German contract and one DPA. Self-hosting has no platform counterparty; any third-party cloud, model, or operations service adds its own terms and residency answer. | Yes | No |
| EU AI Act toolingConnic ships execution logs, approvals, and guardrails mapped to deployer obligations. In self-hosting, available tooling depends on the selected framework, and the operator documents the evidence. | Yes | Partial |
| Compliance outcome without an ops teamConnic's residency ships as a managed service. Self-hosted sovereignty is real, but you operate the stack that provides it. | Yes | No |
Operations & Maintenance
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| Auto-scalingAutomatic with Connic. In Kubernetes, operators configure workload and node autoscaling, metrics, capacity limits, and scale behavior. | Yes | Partial |
| Zero-downtime deploysBuilt into Connic. Kubernetes supports rolling updates, but operators configure health checks, surge limits, and availability policy. | Yes | Partial |
| Automatic rollbacksOne-click in Connic. Kubernetes retains deployment revisions, while the operator owns rollback policy, validation, and recovery procedures. | Yes | Partial |
| Log aggregationBuilt into Connic. Kubernetes does not include cluster-level log storage, so operators select and configure a logging backend. | Yes | Partial |
| Uptime monitoringIncluded with Connic. A Kubernetes deployment needs metrics collection, dashboards, and alerts from the operator's chosen monitoring stack. | Yes | Partial |
| 24/7 on-callConnic handles platform incidents. A self-hosting organization retains incident-response responsibility internally or through a provider. | Yes | Partial |
Security
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| Secrets managementConnic includes encrypted secrets. Kubernetes has native Secrets, but operators must configure encryption at rest, access control, and rotation or connect an external store. | Yes | Partial |
| TLS/SSL certificatesAutomatic with Connic. A self-hosted operator configures certificate issuance, renewal, and ingress termination using its chosen tooling. | Yes | Partial |
| Network isolationManaged by Connic. A self-hosted operator defines the network boundary and access policy for its selected infrastructure. | Yes | Partial |
| Security patchesConnic handles platform patches. In self-hosting, patch responsibility follows the selected infrastructure and service model. | Yes | Partial |
| Security documentationConnic provides security documentation and cloud-provider attestations. Self-hosting leaves the organization responsible for documenting the controls it operates and the providers it uses. | Yes | Partial |
Integration & Connectivity
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| Webhook endpointsConnic includes signed, validated webhooks. In self-hosting, webhook support depends on the selected agent framework or an HTTP service the operator provides. | Yes | Partial |
| Queue consumersKafka and SQS are built into Connic. A self-hosted runtime may include queue support; otherwise the operator configures consumers and their infrastructure. | Yes | Partial |
| Cron schedulingConnic includes a scheduler. Kubernetes provides CronJobs, and other self-hosted runtimes may supply their own scheduling layer. | Yes | Partial |
| WebSocket supportConnic includes WebSocket connection management. A self-hosted design must define connection routing and scaling; sticky sessions are only one possible architecture. | Yes | Partial |
Observability
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| Distributed tracingAutomatic in Connic. Self-hosted tracing depends on framework instrumentation and a collector or backend selected by the operator. | Yes | Partial |
| Run historyConnic includes a run-history dashboard. In self-hosting, run history comes from the selected agent product or storage and UI supplied by the operator. | Yes | Partial |
| Token/cost trackingAutomatic in Connic. Self-hosted frameworks may emit usage data, while the operator chooses how to store, price, and report it. | Yes | Partial |
| AlertingIncluded with Connic. Self-hosted alerting uses the organization's selected incident-management workflow. | Yes | Partial |
Pricing
| Feature | Connic | Self-Hosting |
|---|---|---|
| Credit and postpaid billingDeveloper and Pro include monthly Project credit. Standard Projects can add prepaid credit or capped auto-refill; Enterprise contracts use monthly postpaid billing. Published rates cover platform usage and connic/* model tokens. | Yes | No |
| Project usage in one balanceConnic tracks platform usage in one Project balance at published rates. A self-hosted TCO model should include infrastructure, engineering, incident response, upgrades, and optional tools. | Yes | Partial |
Sovereignty without the ops burden
The residency argument for self-hosting is sound: your infrastructure, your region, your keys. Sovereignty also applies to the trace store, the eval harness, the guardrails service, the approval flow, and the cost dashboard. Your chosen framework may include some of these services. The operator must supply whatever the framework omits, either directly or through another vendor. Kubernetes covers workload orchestration, not that full agent-production surface.
Connic's position is that the compliance outcome and the ops burden are separable. Connic keeps its platform data and connic/* inference in the EU under a German contract. Deployment region and customer-configured services determine end-to-end residency, without requiring your team to operate the platform itself. If you are scoping this decision, walk through the sovereignty checklist first, then count the hidden costs of self-hosting and compare the managed vs self-hosted TCO math.
Where self-hosting genuinely fits
Some workloads should be self-hosted. Regulated environments whose policies require operating the runtime yourself, not just choosing where it runs. Organizations with an existing platform team whose Kubernetes, observability, and on-call practice is already paid for, where an agent workload is marginal load rather than a new discipline. And air-gapped networks, where a managed cloud platform is simply not on the table.
For those cases, Connic offers a self-hosted deployment on the Enterprise tier, so the choice is not platform versus sovereignty. For everyone else, the question is what the requirement actually says. If it says EU residency with auditable logs, a managed EU platform under a German contract can meet that outcome without requiring the customer to operate the platform. That leaves more engineering capacity for agent work.
Why teams choose Connic
What you get on day one without writing connectors, wiring observability, or running infrastructure.
The Real Cost of Self-Hosting
Compare self-hosting with infrastructure, engineering, incident response, upgrades, and opportunity cost in the same TCO model. For the full breakdown, read the guide to replacing self-hosted AI agents.
Use Connic when
- You need EU residency as an outcome, not an infrastructure project
- You want managed deployment instead of operating Kubernetes
- Your team is engineers, not DevOps specialists
- You'd rather build features than manage Kubernetes
- You want published per-unit rates instead of surprise cloud bills
- You don't want to be on-call for your agent infrastructure
Use Self-Hosting when
- Policy requires you to operate the runtime yourself
- You have an existing platform team with Kubernetes and on-call practice
- Your network is air-gapped or on-premise only
- You need complete control over every infrastructure component
- Your measured TCO at the required scale favors self-hosting
Frequently Asked Questions
Bring the workflow, trigger source, compliance constraints, and deployment path you are evaluating. We will help separate what Self-Hosting should handle from what belongs in a managed agent runtime.
Compare with SalesOther platforms on your shortlist
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 AI by Zapier
Zapier is moving standalone Agents into AI by Zapier, an agentic step inside the Zap editor with model choice, BYOK, tools, knowledge, approvals, and task-based billing. It suits UI-driven automation; Connic remains Git-native and keeps its managed core in the EU.
Connic vs Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS's managed, framework-agnostic agent infrastructure spans runtime, memory, identity, gateways, observability, policy, and evaluations across multiple EU regions. Connic offers a more opinionated Python and YAML path with first-party connectors and an integrated Enterprise governance surface.
Connic vs Google Agent Platform
Google's current stack combines the open-source Agent Development Kit with a managed Agent Runtime, custom containers, sessions, memory, evaluation, observability, and Google Cloud controls. Connic narrows that surface into a Python and YAML operating model with managed connectors, selectable EU Project regions, and Enterprise governance.
Connic vs Mistral AI Studio
Mistral's European Studio platform combines Agents with Workflows and Connectors, both currently Public Preview, plus observability, evaluations, governance, and hosted, hybrid, dedicated, or self-hosted deployment. Connic remains model-agnostic and adds first-party event connectors, traffic-split experiments, and a Python-and-YAML workflow.
Connic vs Cloudflare Agents
Cloudflare's TypeScript-native Agents runtime uses Workers and Durable Objects for durable identity, SQLite state, real-time connections, and scheduling; teams can add Workflows, AI Gateway, approval patterns, and beta tracing. Connic offers Python and YAML authoring with named infrastructure connectors, integrated evaluation, and Enterprise governance workflows.
Connic vs LangSmith Deployment
Framework-agnostic managed Agent Server with tracing, evaluations, an EU cloud region, and Enterprise hybrid or self-hosted deployment. Connic adds a German contract, managed connectors, traffic-split testing, and integrated governance controls.