Comparison
Croft vs Inngest
Inngest makes the code in your application durable. Croft is durable software your team has without an application to put it in.
The short answer
Inngest is durable execution for developers who already have somewhere to deploy. You write step functions in TypeScript — also Python and Go — inside your own application, Inngest invokes them over HTTP, and each step is memoised and retried so a run survives failures, restarts and long sleeps. It is a very good fit for background work that belongs next to your product code, and the local dev experience is genuinely excellent.
Croft has no repository in it. There is no application to add the workflow to, no pull request, no deploy: you describe the problem, an agent writes the TypeScript through MCP, and it runs on our runtime with connectors whose credentials we hold and a human granted. The people it is for do not have a deploy pipeline and are not going to get one.
Pick Inngest when the durable steps belong inside software you already ship. Pick Croft when there is no software to put them in and there never will be.
What Inngest is
Inngest is an event-driven durable workflow platform: your functions stay in your codebase and on your hosting, and Inngest handles the events, the steps, the retries, the sleeps and the concurrency around them.
Durable step functions for developers. This page is our reading of Inngest's own published material as of — we deliberately quote no prices of theirs, because a stale price is worse than none. Check their site for the current details.
Croft and Inngest, side by side
| Croft | Inngest | |
|---|---|---|
| Who writes the workflow | You describe the problem in your own words. An agent writes it through MCP, and it is live in the same conversation. | Your engineers, in TypeScript, Python or Go, inside an application you already deploy. |
| What a workflow actually is | TypeScript, compiled to WASM, run in a sandbox with no ambient network and no ambient credentials. | Step functions in your codebase, invoked over HTTP by Inngest. |
| Where the connections live | Held by Croft, scoped to one workspace, granted by a human and revocable in one click. Never inside workflow code. | Environment variables in your own deployment. Every third-party token is yours to store, rotate and scope. |
| When a run is interrupted | It carries on. Runs are checkpointed and replayable, and survive deploys, crashes and losing the machine underneath them. | Strong. Steps are memoised and retried individually, and sleeps and waits survive restarts and redeploys. |
| What you operate | Nothing. No instance, no workers, no queue, no upgrade window. | Your application's hosting and deploy pipeline. Inngest runs the orchestration, you run the code it calls. |
| What you are billed on | A flat price per workspace, metered only on runs per week. People, workspaces and workflows are unlimited on every plan. | Tiered plans metered on runs and steps, plus whatever your own hosting costs. |
| What an agent can do | Everything. Every capability is an MCP tool before it is a screen, so Claude can build, run, inspect and fix workflows directly. | Nothing built in. An agent changing a workflow means a pull request and a deploy, with a human in the middle of both. |
| Getting your work back out | Your workflow TypeScript, your tables and your files export at any time. | It is your repository already. |
The four differences that matter
There is no repository, and that is the point
Inngest's model assumes an app: a codebase, a CI pipeline, a hosting account, someone who knows how to add a route. That assumption is completely reasonable and it excludes almost everyone Croft is built for. Here the workflow has nowhere else to live — the agent writes it into the workspace over MCP and it runs immediately, with no deploy in between the idea and the thing working.
The credentials are managed, not environment variables
With Inngest, connecting to Google Sheets or Stripe means your own OAuth handling, your own token refresh and your own secret storage, because the code runs in your deployment. Croft holds connections centrally, scopes them to a workspace, and hands a workflow only what a human granted — the sandbox has no ambient network and no ambient credentials, so there is nothing for workflow code to leak.
Your code runs on our runtime, not your hosting
Inngest orchestrates; your functions still execute wherever you deployed them, so their reliability is your hosting's reliability and their cost is your hosting's cost. Croft runs the code too, on the BEAM, sandboxed as WASM. That is one fewer bill, one fewer thing to keep alive, and one fewer place for a run to fail for reasons no one can see.
A canvas for people who do not read TypeScript
Inngest's dashboard is built for the developer who wrote the function. Croft's canvas is built for the person whose process it is: the graph, every run inspected step by step, what each one touched, and every grant revocable in one click. Both of you can look at the same workflow and both get something you can act on.
Which one you want
Use Inngest when
- — The durable steps belong inside an application you already build and deploy.
- — You want the workflow code in your repo, in your review process, in your CI.
- — You need to fan out over your own database or call your own internal services.
- — Your team is engineers, and the local dev loop matters more than the credential handling.
Use Croft when
- ✓ There is no application to put the workflow in, and no deploy pipeline to put it through.
- ✓ You want the connectors and their credentials handled rather than built.
- ✓ You want an agent to write, run and fix the workflow with no human in the deploy path.
- ✓ The people who depend on the workflow need to be able to read and stop it themselves.
Common questions
Is Croft an Inngest alternative?
For teams without a codebase, yes. Both give you durable, resumable workflows with retries and long sleeps. Inngest assumes you have an application to host the functions and a pipeline to deploy them; Croft assumes you have neither and never will, and supplies the runtime, the connectors and the author.
Can Croft run code from my own repository?
No. Croft workflows are authored in the workspace — usually by an agent, over MCP — and compiled to WASM to run in our sandbox. You can export the TypeScript at any time, so the logic is portable, but Croft does not invoke code you host yourself.
Which has better durability guarantees?
They are comparable in kind: both checkpoint progress so an interrupted run resumes rather than restarts. The difference is where the failure surface sits. With Inngest the orchestration is theirs and the execution is your hosting's; with Croft both are ours, so there is one system to be up rather than two.
How does the pricing compare?
Inngest meters runs and steps and sits on top of your own hosting bill. Croft charges a flat price per workspace, meters only runs per week, and includes the execution — there is no second bill, because there is no infrastructure on your side.
The fastest way to tell the difference
Say the thing your team keeps having to do, in your own words. An agent writes the workflow, it runs this week, and you have something to compare against Inngest rather than a table to read. The free plan needs no card.