Learn how Inngest and Windmill differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these workflow orchestration tools is best for you.

Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Windmill appears to have several advantages over Inngest, particularly in popularity and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity and features when making your decision.
Windmill significantly outpaces Inngest in community adoption with 16,589 stars compared to 5,413 stars on GitHub. This 3.1x difference suggests Windmill has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Windmill has 969 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Inngest last updated 21 hours ago and Windmill 15 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, Golang. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Inngest uses JSX, Next.js, Lua while Windmill leverages Python, Rust, C, Objective-C, SvelteKit.
Both projects started around the same time, with Inngest beginning 5 years ago and Windmill 4 years ago.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Workflow Orchestration. However, they also have distinct specializations: Inngest also focuses on Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS) while Windmill extends into PaaS & Deployment Tools, Workflow Automation.
Windmill provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Inngest may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.