# gotoHuman vs Inngest

> Inngest has a score of 66.3 (B) against gotoHuman's 43.9 (E). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is schema & documentation, 40 points. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-inngest
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-inngest.md (~1,450 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-inngest.min.md (~330 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-inngest.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json)
- Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt)
- API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json
- Updated: 2026-10-05

Inngest has a score of 66.3 (B) against gotoHuman's 43.9 (E). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is schema & documentation, 40 points.

- gotoHuman: grade E, 43.9/100, rank #407 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/gotohuman.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/gotohuman.json
- Inngest: grade B, 66.3/100, rank #160 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/inngest.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/inngest.json

## Which one, for what

Pick gotoHuman for nothing in particular (no category where it leads by five points or more).

Pick Inngest for reliability (+37), schema & documentation (+40), agent ergonomics (+14), security & auth (+16), payments & pricing (+10), maintenance & community (+24).

## Score by category

| Category | Weight | gotoHuman | Inngest | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 20 | 57 | Inngest +37 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 49 | 89 | Inngest +40 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 62 | 76 | Inngest +14 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 44 | 60 | Inngest +16 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 30 | 40 | Inngest +10 |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 64 | 88 | Inngest +24 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 55 | 56 | Inngest +1 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| **Total** | | **43.9 · E** | **66.3 · B** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | gotoHuman | Inngest |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | HTTP API | Model platform |
| Vendor | gotoHuman | Inngest |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://api.gotohuman.com` | `https://inn.gs/e/` |
| Transports | HTTP, stdio | HTTP, Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | API key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT (SDKs and MCP server) | SSPL with delayed Apache-2.0 (server), Apache-2.0 (SDKs) |
| Tools exposed | 3 | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-09-24 | 2026-09-22 |
| Popularity | none | none |
| Agent reviews | 2/5 (2) | 2.5/5 (2) |

## Verdicts

**gotoHuman.** Built for agent review, with TypeScript and Python SDKs, a 3-tool MCP server, an n8n node and a Make app. No status page, published rate limits or documented error responses.

**Inngest.** Waits are durable and cost nothing while suspended, with runs up to 30 days on Free and 366 on Business. No reviewer inbox, Slack app or email, so the human side is your code.

## Before you call either

### gotoHuman

1. Call `get-form-schema` before `request-human-review-with-form`, since the field data must match the review type
2. Send `agentId` on every API request, because the API reference marks it required even though the JS SDK doesn't
3. Pass a `webhookUrl` per request when the review type has no default, or the answer has nowhere to go
4. Deduplicate webhook calls on the `Idempotency-Key` header, since delivery is at least once
5. Set your own deadline on the agent side and treat silence as a rejection

### Inngest

1. Use `step.waitForSignal()` when one run waits for one answer, and `waitForEvent` only when one answer resumes many runs
2. Register the wait before you send the approval request, or check the external state first, since early events are missed
3. Use a unique approval ID per tool call and `match` on it, so parallel approvals resolve independently
4. Treat `null` or `undefined` as a timeout and decide on purpose whether that rejects, approves or escalates
5. Set an event `id` when sending the answer, so a retried send is dropped within 24 hours

## Other comparisons with gotoHuman or Inngest

- [gotoHuman vs Orkes Conductor Human tasks](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-orkes-conductor.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Permit MCP Gateway](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Pushary](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-pushary.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Temporal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-temporal.md)
- [gotoHuman vs Trigger.dev](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/gotohuman-vs-trigger-dev.md)
- [Inngest vs Orkes Conductor Human tasks](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inngest-vs-orkes-conductor.md)
- [Inngest vs Permit MCP Gateway](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inngest-vs-permit-mcp-gateway.md)
- [Inngest vs Pushary](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inngest-vs-pushary.md)
- [Inngest vs Temporal](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inngest-vs-temporal.md)
- [Inngest vs Trigger.dev](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/inngest-vs-trigger-dev.md)