Inngest vs Trigger

Trigger leads in popularity with 16,272 stars vs 5,829 stars for Inngest. The 179% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Trigger has 1,453 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.

Inngest is growing faster, adding 105 stars in the last 30 days (+1.8%) against adding 251 stars for Trigger (+1.6%). Inngest is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.

Both projects show recent activity, with Inngest last updated 54 minutes ago and Trigger 1 day ago.

Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Next.js. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Inngest uses Golang, Lua while Trigger leverages Python, Remix.

Inngest has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to Trigger which began 4 years ago. This 1.5-year head start suggests Inngest may have more mature features and established processes.

The projects use different licenses: Inngest is licensed under SSPL-1.0 while Trigger uses Apache-2.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.

Both tools serve similar use cases in Durable Execution.

Inngest provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Trigger may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.