Head to head · Human approval · October 2026 research run
Hatchet vs Inngest
Hatchet scores 68.3 (B) on agent readiness against Inngest's 66 (B), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. Both do human approval.
Best human approval and handoff for AI agents · All 45 human approval comparisons
Best workflow automation platforms with APIs for AI agents · All 108 workflows comparisons
Which one, for what
Hatchet B
Good for It suits a team already running background jobs or agent loops on Hatchet that wants an approval pause inside the same durable task, in Python, TypeScript, Go or Ruby.
Ahead on
- Reliability, 66 against 57
- Agent ergonomics, 82 against 76
- Transparency & trust, 71 against 52
Also in its favour
- Runs on your own machine
- Open source
Watch for
No approver inbox, Slack or email channel, routing or reminder. The owner builds the request and the way the answer is pushed
Inngest B
Good for A TypeScript, Python or Go team that already runs agent steps as durable functions and wants a cheap, long wait for a human answer.
Also in its favour
- Free to start without a card
Watch for
No reviewer inbox, Slack app or email, so the human side is your code
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Hatchet | Inngest | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 66 | 57 | Hatchet +9 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 85 | 89 | Inngest +4 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 82 | 76 | Hatchet +6 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 62 | 60 | Hatchet +2 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 40 | 40 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 90 | 88 | Hatchet +2 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 71 | 52 | Hatchet +19 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -2 | 0 | |
| Total | 68.3 · B | 66 · B |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Hatchet | Inngest |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Model platform | Model platform |
| Vendor | Hatchet Technologies, Inc. | Inngest |
| Hosted endpoint | https://cloud.hatchet.run | https://inn.gs/e/ |
| Transports | HTTP, stdio | HTTP, Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | API key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | SSPL with delayed Apache-2.0 (server), Apache-2.0 (SDKs) |
| Tools exposed | 7 | none |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-08 | 2026-09-22 |
| Terms last updated | 2025-07-17 | no date given |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2026-08-18 | couldn't be read |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Terms restrict automated access | not found in the text | yes |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Terms or service can change without notice | not found in the text | yes |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | not found in the text | not found in the text |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.5/5 (2) |
Verdicts
Hatchet
A durable task waits for a keyed event without holding a worker slot, and resumes from its event log after a restart, in Python, TypeScript, Go or Ruby. Hatchet supplies only the pause and resume. It has no approver inbox, notification channel or record of who answered, and its MCP server cannot push the event.
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
Hatchet
- Put the approval wait in a durable task, and keep API calls, database reads and random values in child tasks, because the code between checkpoints is replayed
- Add a sleep condition in the same or group as the event condition to set a deadline, and treat the sleep firing first as a timeout
- Give the event a scope and the wait a lookback window when the answer can arrive before the wait starts. Both must be set together
- Filter with a CEL expression such as
input.user_id == '1234'so one approval key cannot resume another request's task - Push the answer with the SDK's event push or
POST /api/v1/tenants/{tenant}/events. The MCP server has no tool for it - Grant the MCP server one profile with
hatchet mcp auth --grant <profile>. It refuses profiles that were not granted
Inngest
- Use
step.waitForSignal()when one run waits for one answer, andwaitForEventonly when one answer resumes many runs - Register the wait before you send the approval request, or check the external state first, since early events are missed
- Use a unique approval ID per tool call and
matchon it, so parallel approvals resolve independently - Treat
nullorundefinedas a timeout and decide on purpose whether that rejects, approves or escalates - Set an event
idwhen sending the answer, so a retried send is dropped within 24 hours
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Hatchet or Inngest?
Hatchet scores 68.3 (B) on agent readiness against Inngest's 66 (B), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories.
Are Hatchet and Inngest open source?
Hatchet is open source (MIT). No open-source release is listed for Inngest.
Other comparisons with Hatchet or Inngest
- gotoHuman vs Hatchet
- gotoHuman vs Inngest
- Hatchet vs Orkes Conductor Human tasks
- Hatchet vs Permit MCP Gateway
- Hatchet vs Pushary
- Hatchet vs Restate
- Hatchet vs Temporal
- Hatchet vs Trigger.dev
- Hatchet vs withHuman
- Inngest vs Orkes Conductor Human tasks
- Inngest vs Permit MCP Gateway
- Inngest vs Pushary
- Inngest vs Restate
- Inngest vs Temporal
- Inngest vs Trigger.dev
- Inngest vs withHuman
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/hatchet-vs-inngest.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/hatchet.json·/api/v1/tools/inngest.json - From a terminal
anchor compare hatchet inngest(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "hatchet", "b": "inngest"}at/mcp, no key