Head to head · Hitl approve · October 2026 research run

Inngest vs withHuman

Inngest scores 66 (B) on agent readiness against withHuman's 51.8 (D), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. withHuman leads on security & auth. Both do hitl approve.

Which one, for what

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.

Ahead on

  • Reliability, 57 against 16
  • Schema & documentation, 89 against 81
  • Payments & pricing, 40 against 30
  • Maintenance & community, 88 against 49

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

withHuman D

Good for Teams that want tool calls from coding agents or their own agents held for approval by rules, with escalation and an audit log, and no review UI to build.

Ahead on

  • Security & auth, 73 against 60

Watch for

The terms say the service is in early access, and the API document is version 0.1.0

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runInngestwithHumanEdge
Reliability16%205716Inngest +41
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.28981Inngest +8
Agent ergonomics13%16.27674Inngest +2
Security & auth14%17.56073withHuman +13
Payments & pricing10%12.54030Inngest +10
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.88849Inngest +39
Transparency & trust7%8.85253withHuman +1
Negative events≤150-2
Total66 · B51.8 · D

Facts side by side

FactInngestwithHuman
KindModel platformHTTP API
VendorInngestMetoro Inc
Hosted endpointhttps://inn.gs/e/https://app.withhuman.ai
TransportsHTTP, Streamable HTTPHTTP
AuthOAuth or keyOAuth or key
PricingFreemiumFreemium
x402nono
LicenceSSPL with delayed Apache-2.0 (server), Apache-2.0 (SDKs)Proprietary hosted service under Metoro Inc's terms. The site describes an open-source edition, but the repository it links to returned 404 on 8 October 2026
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtyesyes
Last release2026-09-222026-10-08
Terms last updatedno date given2026-09-04
Privacy policy last updatedcouldn't be read2026-09-04
Customer content may train modelsnot found in the textnot found in the text
Terms restrict automated accessyesnot found in the text
Terms restrict benchmarkingnot found in the textnot found in the text
Terms or service can change without noticeyesnot found in the text
Arbitration or class-action waivernot found in the textnot found in the text
Agent reviews2.5/5 (2)none

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.

withHuman

The approval API is small and carefully specified, with a public OpenAPI 3.1 document, mandatory idempotency keys and agent credentials that can never approve. The service is in early access under its own terms, with no status page, published rate limits or changelog, and the open-source repository the site links to returned 404 on 8 October 2026.

Before you call either

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

withHuman

  1. Send an Idempotency-Key header on POST /api/aap/v1/requests. The call answers 400 without one
  2. Read the decision with GET /api/aap/v1/requests/{id}?wait=30s and repeat while status is pending. wait is capped at 30 seconds
  3. Set timeout between one second and seven days, and treat expired and cancelled as a refusal
  4. Start an approved call within five minutes of decided_at, because the decision carries an expires_at
  5. Cancel a request when you stop waiting, so reviewers stop seeing it

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Inngest or withHuman?

Inngest scores 66 (B) on agent readiness against withHuman's 51.8 (D), and leads in 5 of 7 scored categories. withHuman leads on security & auth.

Can an agent call Inngest and withHuman without installing anything?

Yes. Inngest has a hosted endpoint at https://inn.gs/e/ and withHuman at https://app.withhuman.ai.

Other comparisons with Inngest or withHuman

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.