Temporal vs Inngest: Quick Verdict
Temporal and Inngest are the two most discussed workflow orchestration platforms for teams building AI pipelines in 2026. Both provide durable, retryable workflow execution — but they operate at different levels of abstraction and optimize for different team profiles.
Temporal is infrastructure-grade: battle-tested at Uber/Stripe/Airbnb scale, deeply powerful, and designed for engineering teams willing to own their orchestration infrastructure. It handles arbitrarily complex, long-running workflows with millisecond precision.
Inngest is developer-experience-first: deploy in minutes, zero infrastructure to manage, and designed to work natively within the Next.js/serverless ecosystem that most AI product teams use. It handles the 95% of AI workflow cases without the operational overhead of running Temporal.
For most teams building AI-native applications — multi-step LLM pipelines, AI agent orchestration, background AI processing — Inngest is the faster, lower-friction path. Temporal is the right answer when you have genuinely complex, high-scale orchestration requirements that Inngest's model can't accommodate.
What Problem Workflow Orchestration Solves for AI
AI pipelines are uniquely challenging for standard serverless execution:
- Long-running — An AI agent research task might take 30+ minutes; serverless functions time out in seconds or minutes
- Multi-step — Chaining 10 LLM calls with tool use requires reliable state handoff between steps
- Expensive to retry naively — Re-running a 10-step pipeline from scratch when step 8 fails wastes 7 LLM API calls
- Fan-out/fan-in patterns — Running 50 document summaries in parallel and aggregating the results
- Human-in-the-loop — Pausing mid-workflow for human approval, then resuming hours or days later
Both Temporal and Inngest solve these problems through durable execution — checkpointing workflow state so that failures result in a retry from the last successful step, not a restart from scratch.
Temporal
How It Works
Temporal's model is built around workflows (long-running, stateful processes) and activities (individual units of work). You write workflows as ordinary code — Python, Go, Java, TypeScript — and Temporal's runtime intercepts execution, serializes state, and replays the workflow history to reconstruct state after failures or restarts.
The conceptual model is elegant: your workflow code runs as if it's a single function, but Temporal transparently checkpoints every activity completion and handles retries, timeouts, and failures.
// Temporal workflow example
export async function aiResearchWorkflow(topic: string): Promise<ResearchReport> {
const sources = await searchSources(topic); // Activity 1
const summaries = await Promise.all(
sources.map(s => summarizeSource(s)) // Activity 2 (parallel)
);
const report = await synthesizeReport(summaries); // Activity 3
return report;
}
If the worker process crashes during summarizeSource, Temporal replays the workflow history, skips completed activities, and resumes from the failure point. No data is lost.
Temporal Strengths
- Battle-tested at extreme scale — Temporal powers workflows at Uber, Stripe, Airbnb, and Datadog. It is operationally proven.
- Rich execution model — Signals, queries, child workflows, saga patterns, schedule-based workflows
- Language support — First-class SDKs for Go, Java, Python, TypeScript, .NET, PHP
- Temporal Cloud — Managed Temporal service eliminates the operational burden of self-hosting (but adds cost)
- Unlimited workflow duration — Workflows can run for days, months, or years
Temporal Challenges
- Operational complexity — Self-hosted Temporal requires running a server cluster (Cassandra/Postgres + Temporal server). Non-trivial to operate.
- Learning curve — The deterministic execution model has subtle gotchas (non-deterministic code in workflows causes replay failures)
- Not serverless-native — Temporal workers are long-running processes, which doesn't fit naturally into serverless/edge environments
- Temporal Cloud pricing — Billed per action, which can be hard to predict and expensive for high-frequency workflows
Inngest
How It Works
Inngest takes a different architectural approach. Your functions are defined as event-triggered, step-based workflows that run on your existing serverless infrastructure. There's no separate worker process to manage — Inngest communicates with your application via webhooks, executing steps sequentially and storing state centrally.
// Inngest function example
export const aiResearchWorkflow = inngest.createFunction(
{ id: "ai-research-workflow" },
{ event: "research/requested" },
async ({ event, step }) => {
const sources = await step.run("search-sources", () =>
searchSources(event.data.topic)
);
const summaries = await step.run("summarize-sources", () =>
Promise.all(sources.map(s => summarizeSource(s)))
);
const report = await step.run("synthesize-report", () =>
synthesizeReport(summaries)
);
return report;
}
);
Each step.run() is automatically checkpointed. If the function fails mid-execution, Inngest retries from the last completed step. The function deploys as a regular Next.js API route — no additional infrastructure.
Inngest Strengths
- Zero-infrastructure — Deploy as a Next.js API route, Vercel function, or any HTTP endpoint. No workers, no queues to manage.
- Native serverless fit — Inngest was designed for Vercel, Railway, Render. It works with your existing deployment.
- Excellent DX — Local dev server, real-time execution trace UI, step-level debugging out of the box
- Step fan-out —
step.run()with parallel steps handles multi-agent fan-out naturally - Human-in-the-loop —
waitForEvent()lets workflows pause indefinitely for external triggers - Free tier — Generous free tier makes it viable for early-stage AI products
- Type-safe event system — Full TypeScript type safety across workflow triggers and payloads
Inngest Challenges
- Younger platform — Inngest is less proven at extreme Temporal-level scale
- Webhook-based architecture — The step execution model has higher latency per step than Temporal's direct worker model (fine for most AI use cases, relevant for sub-100ms step latency requirements)
- Less expressive for complex patterns — Temporal's signals, queries, and child workflow patterns are more powerful for deeply complex orchestration
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Temporal | Inngest | |---------|----------|---------| | Infrastructure required | Worker cluster + Temporal server | None (serverless) | | Managed option | Temporal Cloud | Inngest Cloud | | Local dev experience | Temporal CLI + dev server | Inngest Dev Server (excellent) | | Step retry/durability | ✅ | ✅ | | Fan-out / parallel steps | ✅ | ✅ | | Human-in-the-loop waits | ✅ (signals) | ✅ (waitForEvent) | | Scheduled/cron workflows | ✅ | ✅ | | Next.js / Vercel native | ⚠️ Requires separate workers | ✅ First-class | | Workflow duration | Years | Days (extendable) | | Language support | Go, Java, Python, TS, .NET | TypeScript / JavaScript | | Scale ceiling | Extreme (Stripe-scale) | High (most AI products) | | Pricing | Per-action (Temporal Cloud) | Per step execution |
AI-Specific Considerations
Multi-Agent Pipelines
Both platforms support multi-agent fan-out — running multiple LLM tasks in parallel and aggregating results. Inngest's step.run() with parallel arrays is slightly simpler to express; Temporal's child workflows are more powerful for deeply nested multi-agent hierarchies.
For the AI agent patterns most teams build (research → summarize → synthesize), Inngest handles it cleanly.
Long-Running Agent Tasks
If your agent tasks regularly exceed 15 minutes, Temporal's long-running workflow model is more suited. Inngest handles long durations, but the step-based webhook model is optimized for tasks measured in minutes, not hours.
Context and Function Calling
Neither platform manages LLM function calling natively — they orchestrate the pipeline around LLM calls, not the calls themselves. The LLM library (LangChain, Vercel AI SDK, raw OpenAI SDK) handles the model interaction; Temporal/Inngest handle durability and state.
When to Choose Temporal
- Extreme scale — Billions of workflow executions per month
- Sub-second step latency requirements — The webhook model adds latency that Temporal workers don't
- Complex orchestration patterns — Saga transactions, long-running state machines, signals and queries
- Non-JavaScript stacks — Your team writes Go, Java, or Python and wants native SDK support
- You already have Temporal expertise — Don't migrate a working Temporal setup to Inngest just because it's newer
When to Choose Inngest
- Building on Next.js / Vercel / serverless — Inngest is the natural fit; Temporal workers are awkward here
- Shipping fast — Zero infrastructure means you can add durable workflows in an afternoon
- Early to mid-stage AI products — Inngest's scale ceiling is more than sufficient for most AI products
- Multi-step AI pipelines with human-in-the-loop —
waitForEvent()is elegant for approval flows - Cost clarity — Inngest's pricing is more predictable than Temporal Cloud's per-action model at variable workloads
For teams already using n8n or Make for lighter orchestration who need programmatic, code-first durability, see our n8n vs Make comparison for context on where the tooling spectrum sits.
The Practical Answer for AI Teams
If you're building an AI product on a modern JavaScript stack (Next.js, Node.js) and you need durable, retryable multi-step workflows for your LLM pipeline — start with Inngest. It deploys in minutes, has an excellent dev experience, and handles the workflow patterns that AI products actually encounter.
Reach for Temporal when you've validated your product, have genuine scale requirements, and have the engineering maturity to operate and maintain a Temporal cluster (or the budget for Temporal Cloud).
Both are good tools. Most AI teams are better served by Inngest's simpler model until complexity forces them toward Temporal's power.
Related: What is an AI Agent? · What is Function Calling? · How We Ship AI MVPs in 3 Weeks
[Not sure how to architect your AI pipeline for durability and scale? Book a 15-min scope call → and we'll map out the right orchestration approach for your use case.]
Related Resources
Related articles:
Our solution: AI MVP Sprint — ship in 3 weeks
Browse all comparisons: Compare
Related Articles
- How We Ship AI MVPs in 3 Weeks (Without Cutting Corners) — Inside look at our sprint process from scoping to production deploy
- AI Development Cost Breakdown: What to Expect — Realistic cost breakdown for building AI features at startup speed
- Why Startups Choose an AI Agency Over Hiring — Build vs hire analysis for early-stage companies moving fast
- The $4,999 MVP Development Sprint: How It Works — Full walkthrough of our 3-week sprint model and what you get
- 7 AI MVP Mistakes Founders Make — Common pitfalls that slow down AI MVPs and how to avoid them