---
title: Tanso vs. Lago vs. Autumn — Open-Source Billing Comparison
description: Honest comparison of Tanso, Lago, Autumn, and Stripe Billing across licensing, self-host, cost tracking, entitlements, metering, credits, invoicing, and MCP support.
date: 2026-07-14
---

# Tanso vs. Lago vs. Autumn

Three open-source billing and entitlement tools, compared from source.
Enforcement and MCP are not unique to Tanso; cost next to revenue in one
ledger, the lightest self-host, and full AGPL are.

| Capability | Tanso | Lago | Autumn | Stripe Billing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| License / OSS | AGPL-3.0, no paid tier | AGPL-3.0 open-core; some features paid | Apache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| Self-host vs. cloud | One Postgres + one service; docker compose up | Docker self-host (5+ services) or Lago Cloud | Cloud-first; self-host from source, thin docs | Cloud only |
| Cost & margin per event | Yes. Cost (tokens, model) next to revenue on every event | Revenue analytics only; no per-event cost † | No. Meters usage, not cost † | No. Payments, not your COGS |
| Real-time entitlement checks | Yes. Allow/deny at ingestion | API only; you enforce in your app † | Yes. Inline check API | No |
| Usage metering | Yes. Idempotent events | Yes. High volume (Kafka + ClickHouse) | Yes. track API | Yes. Meters |
| Subscription billing | Yes. Usage + subscription, proration | Yes. Hybrid, proration | Yes, on top of Stripe | Yes. Core product |
| Credit / wallet | Yes. Pools with hard limits | Yes. Wallets, top-ups, rollover | Yes. Credits, grants, expiration | Limited |
| Invoicing | Yes | Yes. Taxes, credit notes, dunning | Via Stripe | Yes. Mature invoicing + tax |
| Stripe integration | Optional payment adapter | Payment-agnostic | Stripe-native by design | N/A, it is Stripe |
| MCP / AI-agent support | Yes, consent gate on spend | Yes (Lago AI) | Yes, approval-gated writes | Agent toolkit |
| Stack / language | Spring Boot; single Postgres | Rails; Kafka + ClickHouse at volume | TypeScript on Bun; Postgres + Redis | Managed service |
| Maturity / adoption | Earliest-stage of the four | Most mature: YC S21, SOC 2, PayPal + Groq | Growing: YC F24, AI focus | Industry incumbent |

† Inferred from each project's source and docs (July 2026), not vendor
statements. Verify against Lago and Autumn directly.

## Who each is built for

**Lago:** real billing complexity: multiple payment providers, taxes,
dunning, serious volume. Strengths: most mature (YC S21, SOC 2, PayPal +
Groq), deepest billing features, payment-agnostic, proven at volume.
Weaknesses: heaviest self-host (5+ services), open-core, no view of your
inference costs.

**Autumn:** TypeScript startups on Stripe that want pricing live in an
afternoon. Strengths: lowest integration effort, handles upgrade/cancel/
failed-payment flows, Apache-2.0, first-party MCP server. Weaknesses:
requires Stripe, cloud-first with thin self-host, meters what you sell but
not what it costs you.

**Tanso:** B2B AI products selling credits or usage, where margin per
customer is a real question. Strengths: one ledger (cost next to revenue),
enforcement at ingestion, lightest self-host (one Postgres, one service),
fully AGPL, MCP server with consent gate on spend. Weaknesses:
earliest-stage, Stripe-only payments (no tax or dunning), self-host only.

Already on Stripe? None of these replace it for payments. Autumn builds on
it, Lago treats it as one gateway, Tanso syncs to it.

## Links

- [Tanso source](https://github.com/tansohq/tanso-oss) · [docs](https://tanso.mintlify.app)
- [Lago](https://github.com/getlago/lago) · [Autumn](https://github.com/useautumn/autumn)
- [HTML version of this page](https://tansohq.com/compare)