Registry › Compare › Hatchet vs Trigger.dev

Hatchet vs Trigger.dev

Trigger.dev leads on trust: 86.8/100 (Grade A) against 67.2/100 (Grade B), a 19.6-point gap. Trigger.dev leads on provenance and adoption, and rests on broader evidence.

B Hatchet 67.2

🪓 An orchestration engine for background tasks, AI agents, and durable workflows

hatchet-dev/hatchet · #437 overall · #8 Workflow Platforms · coverage C (2/5)

Hatchet doesn't lead on any scored dimension in this pair.

A Trigger.dev 86.8

Trigger.dev – build and deploy durable AI agents and workflows

triggerdotdev/trigger.dev · #66 overall · #3 Workflow Platforms · coverage B (3/5)

Choose Trigger.dev if provenance and adoption matter most.

+8.8Adoption: 16.5k GitHub stars against 8.1k
+7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
+2.3Safety / Integrity: package provenance attested, against none
B vs CEvidence coverage: 3 of 5 independent signal types, against 2

Where they differ

12.7

Safety / IntegrityTrigger.dev +2.3

15.0

10.8

Identity / ProvenanceTrigger.dev +7.2

18.0

13.9

TransparencyHatchet +0.4

13.5

9.4

AdoptionTrigger.dev +8.8

18.2

+0.5

Runtime calibrationTrigger.dev +1.7

+2.2

1 dimension identical: Maintenance 19.9 · Full evidence table

An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of Hatchet and Trigger.dev, two Workflow Platforms projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.

Full evidence

Signal	Hatchethatchet-dev/hatchet	Trigger.devtriggerdotdev/trigger.dev
HVTrust score	67.2	86.8
Evidence grade	B	A
Coverage grade	C	B
Overall rank	#437	#66
Rank in Workflow Platforms	#8	#3
GitHub stars	8.1k	16.5k
Last updated	1d ago	1d ago
Build provenance	No	Yes
OSSF Scorecard	6.3 / 10	5.9 / 10
License	MIT	Apache-2.0
Downloads	—	1.2M/wk
Trust dimensions (points earned)
Safety / integrity / 25	12.7	15.0
Identity & provenance / 18	10.8	18.0
Transparency / 17	13.9	13.5
Maintenance / 20	19.9	19.9
Adoption / 20	9.4	18.2
Runtime capability surface (full matrix)
MCP server	Implemented	Implemented
External providers	4 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, OpenAI, …	4 — Anthropic, OpenAI, Postgres, …
Requires API keys	No	No
Plugin surface	—	extensions
Provenance drift	—	Match

Open in the live compare tool → Hatchet profile Trigger.dev profile More Workflow Platforms →

How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →