CrewAI Alternatives: 10 Options Sorted by How Your Team Builds

If you want to stay in code, LangGraph is the closest CrewAI alternative: an MIT-licensed framework like open-source CrewAI, but built from low-level graphs instead of role-based crews. If the people building agents do not write Python, look at workflow tools with agents inside (n8n, Zapier Agents) or credit-billed agent platforms (Gumloop, Lindy, Relevance AI). If the agents will talk to your customers on a website or WhatsApp, look at Botpress. Manus AI, Genspark and Sintra sit further out. They are hosted assistants that a person, or a small team on the Manus AI or Genspark Team plans, hands tasks to, not frameworks. Keep one number in mind while comparing: CrewAI AMP's free Basic plan includes 50 workflow executions a month, additional executions are not included on Basic, and the only larger plan is Enterprise, priced on request.

What each alternative actually bills you for

CrewAI is two products under one name. The open-source CrewAI framework is a Python package under the MIT license that you run on your own machines. CrewAI AMP (Agent Management Platform) is the paid layer that builds, deploys, triggers and monitors crews and flows, with a no-code Studio on both of its plans. Most alternatives replace one half or the other. CrewAI's pricing page prints no dollar price for either plan, so the useful comparison is the meter each rival runs on ^[1].

Read the last column before any price. Whole-run meters reward long jobs, seat meters grow with headcount, and tool-run meters grow with every step an agent takes. Self-running is never free either: with open-source CrewAI, your LLM provider bills every agent call and many tools need paid keys of their own, as our CrewAI pricing guide explains.

LangGraph: the open-source swap for code-first teams

LangGraph, from LangChain Inc, is a low-level orchestration framework and runtime for long-running, stateful agents. It is MIT-licensed and works without LangChain itself. Where open-source CrewAI hands you agents with roles, goals and tasks, LangGraph prescribes no agent architecture at all: you draw a graph of shared state, nodes and edges, then compile it. That costs design time up front. In return, every branch, retry and pause sits exactly where you put it.

The depth is in durability. Production use calls for a database-backed checkpointer such as Postgres, MongoDB or Redis; nodes get retry policies and, for async nodes, timeouts, interrupt() pauses a graph for human input, and time travel replays or forks a run. Open-source CrewAI covers similar ground its own way: @persist saves Flow state to local SQLite by default, checkpointing resumes or forks a run, and @human_feedback pauses a Flow for review. Our CrewAI vs LangGraph comparison goes feature by feature.

The bills split at deployment. LangSmith Developer is $0 per seat a month for one seat, LangSmith Plus is $39 per seat a month, and Enterprise is custom ^[2]. Cloud deployments of LangGraph agents need Plus or Enterprise. By our arithmetic, three seats on Plus come to $117 a month, before pay-as-you-go traces and any Agent Server beyond the one free small serverless server, billed on resources at no printed rate. LangChain also says Agent Server can deploy CrewAI agents, so leaving the framework and leaving AMP are separate decisions.

n8n and Zapier Agents: agents inside a workflow tool

n8n

Where a CrewAI crew is code you deploy, n8n is a visual workflow tool with AI agent nodes, and its meter counts whole workflow runs, start to finish, never steps or users . On n8n Cloud, Starter covers 2,500 executions a month for $24 billed monthly ($20 a month on annual billing), and Pro covers 10,000 for $60 billed monthly ($50 a month annually). Business lifts the allowance to 40,000 executions for $960 billed monthly or $800 a month billed annually, but it runs only on your own servers.

The free Community Edition runs on your own servers under a Sustainable Use License, so n8n is fair-code rather than open source in the MIT sense. It brings 500+ native integrations plus any API through the HTTP Request node. AI steps add a second meter for model tokens, through Gateway credits or your own key. The two vendors use the same word for meters they define separately. Do not compare execution counts directly. Our n8n review covers the rest.

Zapier Agents

Zapier Agents are built with help from Zapier Copilot and work across 9,000+ apps, the draw for a team already living in Zapier. Templates include a lead enrichment agent, a sales email writer and a support email agent. Zapier sells Agents as a separate add-on on its pricing page: Agents Free with 400 activities a month, Agents Pro at $400 billed annually ($33.33 a month) for 1,500 activities a month, and Agents Enterprise at a custom price. The Agents page FAQ refers to a beta. If you only want Zapier as the trigger, you may not need to leave: AMP automations can already be called from Zapier through the CrewAI+ app. See our Zapier review for its plans.

Gumloop, Lindy, Relevance AI and Botpress: hosted agent platforms

Gumloop

Gumloop sells Pro at $37 a month for the whole organization's shared pool of 20,000 credits, with a 14-day trial that needs a card. Pro includes unlimited seats and lets you bring your own model keys, and the catalog lists 300+ connectors. There is no free plan and no annual price. Gumloop overage runs $0.005 per credit and is off by default. For a team that wants one bill however many people build, an organization pool is the simplest model here, as our Gumloop review shows.

Lindy

Lindy is the per-person option in this group: each active user pays a monthly seat with a credit allowance attached. The entry seat on its pricing page is $29.99 per user a month with 3,000 credits, though some visits show $49.99 per user a month with 5,000 credits instead. New accounts get $50 in credits for 7 days without a card, extra credits cost $10 per 1,000, and Lindy refunds no purchase. A ten-person rollout therefore costs ten seats, whatever the crew volume. Details sit in our Lindy review.

Relevance AI

Relevance AI (4.01) counts one Action every time a Tool runs, failed runs included, and passes model and tool costs through as Vendor Credits with no markup . Bringing your own API keys is optional on every plan and bypasses Vendor Credits. Relevance AI top-ups on paid plans are $80 per 1,000 Actions and $20 per 10,000 Vendor Credits, paid by credit card only. An agent that calls many tools per job spends Actions fast.

Botpress

Botpress is the hosted option for agents that talk to customers. Teams build in the browser-based Studio, or code-first with the ADK, a CLI and TypeScript framework, and deploy to a website chat widget, WhatsApp and other channels, with handoff to human agents in Botpress Desk. It runs only on Botpress Cloud; the self-hosted v12 has been sunset, so it does not replace a framework you run yourself. Billing counts conversations: Botpress Free includes 100 conversations, Botpress Plus costs $150 a month billed annually or $189 a month billed monthly for 250 conversations a month, and Botpress Team costs $750 a month billed annually or $939 a month billed monthly for 1,500 conversations a month. Our Botpress review covers its four builders on one plan.

Manus AI, Genspark and Sintra: assistants rather than frameworks

These three answer a different question. They are hosted, credit-billed assistants that a person or a small team hands tasks to, not a framework for wiring agents into your own systems behind an API. They fit only if CrewAI was more machinery than the job needed. All three print monthly prices with credits included, each with a credit allowance attached to the plan itself.

Manus AI

Manus AI hands whole tasks to an agent that picks a mode for the job, from everyday edits in Lite to complex work in Max, which suits one person delegating research or documents. Its free tier tops up 300 credits a day for Manus 2.0 Lite, capped at 1,500 a month, after 1,000 credits on sign-up. Paid use begins with Pro from $20 a month billed monthly for 4,000 credits, or $17 a month on yearly billing ($200 a year). Team runs from $20 per seat a month, each seat adding 4,000 credits to a shared pool, and Enterprise goes through sales. See our Manus AI review.

Genspark

Genspark bundles a Super Agent, AI Slides, Docs, Sheets and AI phone calls in one workspace, closer to an office suite than to a crew you build. Free use is 100 credits a day until a lifetime cap runs out. Plus begins from $24.99 a month billed monthly, or $19.99 a month on annual billing ($239.99 a year), with 10,000 credits a month. Team needs at least 2 seats at $40 per seat a month billed monthly, or $35 per seat a month billed annually ($420 per seat a year), and Enterprise is custom. Our Genspark review has more.

Sintra

Sintra is the furthest from CrewAI: 12 ready-made AI employees, with nothing to design. Its single plan, Sintra X, includes 250 credits a month and costs $48.50 a month billed monthly, $23.60 a month on quarterly billing ($70.80 every 3 months) or $15.60 a month on yearly billing ($187.20 a year). The pricing page offers no free plan or trial, but a first purchase on the web comes with a 14-day money-back guarantee. Our Sintra review walks through each employee.

Reasons to leave CrewAI, and reasons to stay

Leave for a code-first rival when you want explicit control of every step: node-level retries and timeouts, time travel, and a graph you can inspect. Leave for a no-code platform when your builders do not write Python and need a published price. The Basic cap matters. By our arithmetic, 50 workflow executions a month is about 1.7 a day on a 30-day month, across at most 2 automations.

Stay if you want role-based agents set up quickly. The framework is free under MIT, projects are defined in JSON or Python, Studio gives non-coders a builder on both AMP plans, and Flows add event-driven control with state. Check what pushes you off Basic first: more than 50 workflow executions a month or more than 2 automations, enterprise connectors, SSO, role-based access control, PII redaction, a dedicated VPC or NAT, and dedicated support are Enterprise only, as our CrewAI review details. CrewAI's comparison page ties Microsoft Agent Framework to Azure and .NET work and positions AutoGen for conversational multi-agent loops.

Reviewers on G2 mostly praise how CrewAI splits a complex job into role-based agents and how fast multi-agent prototypes come together. The recurring complaints are token use and run time that grow quickly with multi-agent workflows, and agents that can loop on tools. One reviewer adds that production use needs more work on guardrails, state and error handling. CrewAI now stops the task on the fifth identical tool call, meaning the same tool with the same arguments and the same result. That limit is fixed.

Choosing by who builds the agents

Python developers who outgrow role-based crews should look at LangGraph and price LangSmith seats plus compute; developers who only want different hosting can keep the framework and change the platform. Operations teams that need many app connections on a published per-run meter will find n8n the closest fit. Non-technical teams choose between an organization credit pool, per-user seats and per-tool-run Actions. People who wanted a hosted assistant to hand tasks to were never really shopping for a framework.