Work on Repeat
Menu
All guides

The best Lindy alternatives for scheduled AI agents

Five researched alternatives to Lindy for teams that want AI agents on a schedule, compared on permissions, pricing models, and who each fits.

By Work on Repeat team · Published August 13, 2026 · Last reviewed

The short version

ToolBest forPricing
Work on RepeatTeams that want a recurring responsibility owned end to end, with per-tool permissions and an inspectable trace of every run.Free tier for proving a first routine; paid tiers at $10, $39, and $99/month metered by run starts and AI usage, with a custom Business tier. source
ZapierTeams already on Zapier that want light agent capability next to their existing Zaps and the largest app catalog anywhere.Free tier with 100 tasks/month; paid Zap plans from $19.99/month billed annually, metered per task. Zapier Agents is billed separately per activity — its standalone price is not plainly stated on the pricing page, so verify before budgeting. source
MakeVisual builders who want precise schedules and branching logic at a low entry price.Free tier with 1,000 credits a month; paid tiers start at $9/month for 10,000 credits, metered per module operation. Make advertises an annual-billing discount, so check which term the displayed price reflects. source
n8nEngineering teams that want LangChain-style agent composition, code in the loop, and the option to self-host.The self-hosted Community Edition is free with unlimited executions; hosted Cloud starts at €20/month for 2,500 executions billed annually, metered per workflow execution. Cloud offers a trial rather than a permanent free tier. source
GumloopTeams orchestrating several agents at once that need governance — RBAC, scoped credentials, VPC — before enterprise pricing.No free tier — a 14-day trial of Pro at $37/month with 20,000 credits and unlimited seats, using a documented credit formula that includes an orchestration fee. source

Pricing and capability claims come from each vendor’s own pages and were last checked on August 13, 2026. Vendors change plans; follow the source links for the current version.

Lindy's pitch is genuinely appealing: describe a job in a sentence, and an AI teammate starts doing it. For a non-technical operator automating their own recurring work, that speed from idea to running agent is the best in the category, and if that is you, staying put is a defensible choice.

The reasons teams look elsewhere are usually structural rather than quality complaints: there is no free tier since pricing moved to per-seat-plus-credits, unused credits expire monthly, there is no self-hosted option, and chat-style configuration can be hard to audit when an agent touches systems that matter. This guide compares five alternatives on exactly those axes.

How we chose this list

Each tool was evaluated against the same four criteria, using vendor product and pricing pages as primary sources (linked in the table, checked on the review date shown): real scheduled execution, genuine multi-step AI capability, a stated permission model for what the agent may touch, and a pricing meter you can reason about in advance.

Full disclosure: we build Work on Repeat, the first entry. Its tradeoffs are listed with the same candor as everyone else's, and for several readers the honest answer is one of the other four tools — the closing section says which.

One tool we deliberately left out: Relay.app, which announced its shutdown and is winding down access as of this review. If you are migrating from it, most tools here import from its JSON export with some rework.

Choosing between them

If your bottleneck is trust — you need to see what the agent did and constrain what it can do — Work on Repeat's per-tool approvals and run traces are built for exactly that, and Gumloop's RBAC serves the same instinct at multi-agent scale. If your bottleneck is coverage, Zapier's catalog wins. If it is cost control at volume, n8n self-hosted is unmatched. If it is speed for a non-technical builder, Make is the gentlest visual step up from Lindy's chat-first world — and Lindy itself remains the fastest place to start.

Strengths and tradeoffs at a glance

  • Work on Repeat

    Visit

    Teams that want a recurring responsibility owned end to end, with per-tool permissions and an inspectable trace of every run.

    Strengths

    • Permissions are the product: every MCP tool starts disabled, and write-like actions need a separate automatic-execution approval.
    • Run traces show each model step, tool call, and result, so you verify instead of trust.
    • Templates for concrete responsibilities — security audits, issue triage, revenue reports — rather than a blank canvas.

    Tradeoffs

    • A smaller integration surface than Lindy's catalog — built-ins plus the MCP servers you connect.
    • Instructions-first configuration reads like writing a brief; teams wanting pure conversation may prefer Lindy's chat-style setup.
    • Scheduled and API triggers today; no inbox-style event triggers yet.
  • Zapier

    Visit

    Teams already on Zapier that want light agent capability next to their existing Zaps and the largest app catalog anywhere.

    Strengths

    • Nine thousand app integrations — no one else on this list is close.
    • Agents can require approval before consequential actions, with enterprise governance over which apps AI touches.
    • One account covers classic automation and agent experiments.

    Tradeoffs

    • Two separate meters — tasks for Zaps, activities for Agents — complicate budgeting.
    • Agent capability is newer than the core product; the deepest features assume you live in the Zap ecosystem.
    • Cloud-only, with no self-hosting story.
  • Make

    Visit

    Visual builders who want precise schedules and branching logic at a low entry price.

    Strengths

    • Per-minute scheduling on every paid tier.
    • Visual, prompt-based, and MCP building modes over the same scenario engine.
    • The most affordable paid entry point of this list.

    Tradeoffs

    • Agents are a feature on a workflow platform, not the organizing idea — deep agent autonomy is not the design center.
    • Per-operation credits are hard to forecast for long scenarios.
    • Fifteen-minute minimum schedule on the free tier.
  • Engineering teams that want LangChain-style agent composition, code in the loop, and the option to self-host.

    Strengths

    • Self-hosting with full source access — the only genuine data-residency answer on this list.
    • Agent nodes compose: any workflow can become a tool another agent calls.
    • Whole-run metering keeps complex workflows from multiplying costs.

    Tradeoffs

    • Assumes technical users; non-engineers will find the canvas and credential model demanding.
    • SSO and version control sit behind a €667/month Business tier.
    • Hosted Cloud has no permanent free tier.
  • Gumloop

    Visit

    Teams orchestrating several agents at once that need governance — RBAC, scoped credentials, VPC — before enterprise pricing.

    Strengths

    • Scoped access controls decide which agents reach which tools and data.
    • Unlimited seats — cost follows usage, not headcount.
    • The credit formula is complex but fully documented, which beats opaque.

    Tradeoffs

    • No free tier, so trying it means starting a trial clock.
    • Budgeting requires understanding five credit-consumption categories.
    • Concurrency caps on Pro arrive quickly for heavier workloads.

If scheduled AI responsibilities fit your problem.

Browse the routine library, or prove one run on your own data before deciding anything.

Browse the routine library