Head to head · Hitl approve · October 2026 research run
Inngest vs Temporal
Temporal has a score of 77.2 (BB) against Inngest's 66.3 (B). Both do hitl approve. The largest gap is reliability, 28 points.
Which one, for what
Pick Inngest for
- payments & pricing (+20)
Pick Temporal for
- reliability (+28)
- agent ergonomics (+9)
- security & auth (+26)
- transparency & trust (+14)
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Inngest | Temporal | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 57 | 85 | Temporal +28 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 89 | 91 | Temporal +2 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 76 | 85 | Temporal +9 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 60 | 86 | Temporal +26 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 40 | 20 | Inngest +20 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 88 | 90 | Temporal +2 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 56 | 70 | Temporal +14 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 66.3 · B | 77.2 · BB |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Inngest | Temporal |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Model platform | Model platform |
| Vendor | Inngest | Temporal Technologies |
| Hosted endpoint | https://inn.gs/e/ | no (local only) |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Pay per use |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | SSPL with delayed Apache-2.0 (server), Apache-2.0 (SDKs) | MIT |
| Tools exposed | none | 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 | yes |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | not listed | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-15 |
| Popularity | none | none |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (2) | 3.6/5 (8) |
Verdicts
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.
Temporal
Waits of any length with a timeout survive worker restarts and deploys. No reviewer inbox, notifications or routing, so the human side is all your code.
Before you call either
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
Temporal
- Put the decision in a typed Signal payload (approver, decision, comments, timestamp) instead of a bare boolean
- Always wait with a timeout and treat the timeout path as a rejection or an escalation on purpose
- Use the workflow ID as the approval ID, so the reviewer's tool only needs one value to send the Signal
- Use an Update instead of a Signal when the approver's tool needs an acknowledgement back
- Expect
ResourceExhaustedunder load and let the SDK retry it, since signals are throttled last
Other comparisons with Inngest or Temporal
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/inngest.json·/api/v1/tools/temporal.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/inngest-vs-temporal.md