Agent-native, not a jobs platform extending to agents
Trigger.dev is a great background job platform adding agent features. Connic was built as an agent platform from day one — with connectors, evals, memory, and vector storage included.
Feature Comparison
See how Connic stacks up against Trigger.dev across key capabilities.
Product Shape
Agent-native runtime
Connic's primary surface is agents. Trigger.dev's core surface is background jobs; AI Agents are a newer addition on top.
YAML-based agent config
Connic uses declarative YAML + Python. Trigger.dev is code-only (TypeScript tasks).
Python support
Connic is Python-first. Trigger.dev's SDK is TypeScript.
Durable execution
Both support durable, long-running execution with automatic retries.
Deployment & Operations
Managed hosting included
Both offer managed cloud hosting. Trigger.dev Free includes $5 in monthly usage credit.
Self-hosted option
Trigger.dev is open-source and self-hostable out of the box. Connic offers self-hosting on Enterprise.
Environment management (dev / staging / prod)
Both support multiple environments per project.
Retention of logs / traces
Connic retention is tiered per plan. Trigger.dev: 1 day Free, 7 days Hobby, 30 days Pro, custom Enterprise.
Integrations & Triggers
Webhook triggers
Both support webhook-triggered tasks.
Cron scheduling
Both support scheduled runs. Trigger.dev's roots are in scheduled jobs.
First-party Kafka connector
Connic has a first-party Kafka connector. With Trigger.dev you build the consumer yourself.
First-party SQS connector
Connic has a first-party SQS connector. With Trigger.dev you build the poller.
First-party Email connector
Connic has a first-party email connector. Trigger.dev requires external inbound email handling.
First-party Stripe connector
Connic has a first-party Stripe connector. Trigger.dev uses generic webhooks.
First-party Postgres connector
Connic has a first-party Postgres connector. Trigger.dev is compute, not data.
Realtime UI streaming
Both offer realtime connections to the frontend. Trigger.dev ships dedicated Realtime primitives.
Agent-Specific Features
Agent memory
Connic includes agent memory as a first-class primitive. Trigger.dev jobs manage state via your own store.
Vector / knowledge base
Connic bundles vector storage and knowledge entries into every plan. Trigger.dev has no first-party vector storage.
Built-in judges / evals
Connic ships a first-party judge service. Trigger.dev has no equivalent.
MCP tool support
Connic supports MCP directly. Trigger.dev can call MCP servers from a task but doesn't treat MCP as a first-class runtime concept.
Pricing
Flat tier pricing
Connic: $0 / $390 / $2,499 / $7,999 flat. Trigger.dev: $0 / $10 / $50 flat + metered compute.
Per-seat charges on Pro
Connic Pro doesn't charge per seat. Trigger.dev Pro adds $20/seat beyond the included 25 members.
Compute included in plan
Connic bundles compute minutes into the plan (400 / 2,000 / 10,000). Trigger.dev includes a monthly usage allowance ($5 / $10 / $50) and meters machines per-second above it.
Why teams choose Connic
Key advantages that make Connic the better choice for production AI agents.
The Bottom Line
Trigger.dev is excellent if your primary need is background jobs and you'd like AI agents adjacent to them. Connic is the better choice if agents are the job and you want connectors, evals, and memory included.
Use Connic when
- Agents are your primary workload, not a feature next to background jobs
- Your agent code is Python
- You need enterprise connectors (Kafka, SQS, Stripe, Postgres, Email) day one
- You want agent memory, vector storage, and judges included, not assembled
- You prefer flat plan pricing without per-seat charges
Use Trigger.dev when
- Background jobs are your primary workload; agents are a new addition
- Your stack is TypeScript and you want tight Next.js / Realtime integration
- You need open-source self-hostability on day one
- You want a jobs platform that can also run agent code
- You're happy to assemble memory, vectors, and evals from third-party services
Compare Connic to other platforms
Evaluating alternatives? These head-to-head comparisons cover the other platforms most teams consider.
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.
Connic vs Zapier AI
No-code automation with AI chatbots. Great for simple use cases, but limited for production AI agents.
Connic vs LangSmith Deployment
LangChain Inc.'s managed runtime for LangGraph agents (renamed from LangGraph Platform in October 2025). Great if you're committed to LangGraph; limiting if you aren't.