Inngest vs Mastra
A side-by-side comparison of Inngest and Mastra, two Orchestration tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | Inngest | Mastra |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Orchestration | Orchestration |
| Pricing | FREEMIUM | FREEMIUM |
| License (differs) | Proprietary | Open core |
| Deployment | Hybrid | Hybrid |
| Platforms (differs) | API | API, CLI |
| Model support (differs) | Model-agnostic | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Inngest | Mastra |
The honest brief
Inngest
Durable, resumable functions with no message queue or worker pool for you to stand up and operate.
- Durable execution, automatic retries
- Pause/resume + fan-out + scheduling
- TypeScript-first, framework-agnostic
- Local dev server included
- Smaller ecosystem than Temporal
- Best fit TS/JS; other langs newer
- Hosted tier cost at high event volume
Mastra
Built TypeScript-first on the Vercel AI SDK — far less boilerplate and faster runtime than LangGraph's abstractions.
- TypeScript-native, low boilerplate
- Graph workflow engine plus memory and tools
- Self-hostable or deploy to Mastra Cloud
- Built-in observability
- Younger ecosystem, fewer examples
- Small plugin set (~50-60 integrations)
- Workflow chaining unintuitive for complex branching
- TypeScript-only; no Python path