Credyt vs Stigg

Stigg is a control and monetization layer: entitlements, packaging, and credit rules orchestrated over Stripe, Zuora, or Chargebee. Credyt covers the same ground and adds margin observability, and it's built to be set up through AI tools like Claude Code, Cursor, and Lovable. This article compares platform scope, technical architecture, pricing at the canonical scenario, and when each one fits.

At a glance

Stigg: Control and monetization layer for growth-stage to mid-market SaaS and AI companies that already run Stripe, Zuora, or Chargebee. It ships a typed entitlement primitive, a Credits Suite with stacked grants, and a unified feature model covering Boolean, Numeric, and Metered features in one primitive. It also includes a no-code pricing console with plan versioning and embeddable UI widgets. Stigg centralizes what you sell and who can use it; payments and invoicing run through the connected billing system.

Founded 2021 in Tel Aviv, with a $17.5M Series A in December 2024. Named customers include Webflow, Miro, New Relic, Cloudinary, AI21, PagerDuty, Upwork, and Airbyte (Stigg, accessed April 2026).

Credyt: Billing platform for AI products. It covers wallets and monetization and adds cost and margin observability. Every customer gets a wallet; platforms POST usage and Credyt debits in real time.

Hosted, branded portal with self-service top-ups via Stripe Checkout, overdraft-by-default, built-in Stripe processing with external PSP support, and event-level cost ingestion with per-customer margin dashboards. Designed to be set up through AI tools like Claude Code, Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, and Windsurf via an MCP server, AI skills, and AI-friendly documentation. Cloud-only, $90/month at 100 customers, no contract minimum.

Both platforms address usage-based billing for AI products. The architectural posture and the surface each exposes differ.

What Stigg does

Stigg gives product and growth teams a control layer for entitlements, packaging, and credit rules that orchestrates over existing billing systems. Its unified feature model treats Boolean features (feature flags), Numeric features (seats), and Metered features as one primitive, so feature flags, seat allocations, and metered entitlements share a single source of truth. A typed entitlement check returns an allowed-or-blocked response with remaining quota in a typed payload at documented P95 latency under 100ms.

The Credits Suite supports multiple credit types per customer with per-grant priority, expiry, category, prepaid pools, custom consumption formulas, and an append-only ledger. Backend SDKs cover Node, Python, Go, Ruby, and Java, with a gRPC sidecar for other languages; UI components cover React, JavaScript, and Vue. Stigg connects to Stripe, Zuora, Chargebee, AWS Marketplace, and Apple App Store (Stigg Docs, accessed April 2026).

Where Credyt differs

Stigg is focused on helping you control access and monetize usage across an existing billing system. Credyt covers that same ground and adds observability on cost and margin. Vendor costs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and compute providers are ingested alongside usage events and linked at the event or customer level. Dashboards surface gross revenue, total cost, net revenue, and margin per customer, per workload, and per feature in real time.

Stigg's documentation is explicit that profitability analytics isn't part of the product: usage reporting tracks consumption and revenue, not cost (Stigg Docs, accessed April 2026). For an AI product where model selection changes unit economics request by request, revenue without margin is half the picture. Teams that want to adopt real-time billing without replacing their stack tend to want both halves.

Credyt is also built to be set up through AI tools. It ships an MCP server at mcp.credyt.ai, AI skills, and documentation written for AI assistants to consume. Claude Code, Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, and Windsurf can read the API surface, scaffold the wallet, wire up the portal, and set up metering from inside the editor. Any AI coding tool that supports the MCP protocol connects the same way.

Stigg documents standard SDKs for human engineers (Node, Python, Go, Ruby, Java, gRPC, React, JavaScript, Vue) but doesn't document an MCP server, AI skills, or an AI-assistant integration workflow. For teams building AI products inside AI IDEs, the practical difference is whether the billing integration happens in prompts or in a docs tab.

Credyt's third difference is portal posture and surface breadth. Credyt ships a hosted, branded portal that customers reach through a link. Live balance, Stripe Checkout for top-ups, self-configured auto-top-up thresholds, and payment-method management all work without frontend engineering.

Stigg's portal is embeddable widgets for React, JavaScript, and Vue that render inside the host product, which is the right primitive when billing UI needs pixel-level control over where it lives. Credyt's surface is narrow on purpose (wallet, portal, single POST for usage, overdraft-by-default) so AI teams can ship in an afternoon rather than model entitlements, add-ons, and feature flags first. Stigg's surface is wide on purpose to cover exactly that packaging work.

Technical comparison

How do the prices compare?

At the canonical 100-customer scenario ($20 average spend, 1,000 events per customer per month, 5 platform seats, $2,000 monthly revenue, 100,000 total monthly events), Credyt is $90/month and Stigg's effective cost is $448/month.

Stigg: per-unit costs for this scenario total ~$192, but the Growth plan has a contract minimum of $448/mo (billed annually), so that's the effective cost at this scale.

Source: Stigg pricing, accessed April 2026. Enterprise subscription rate ($0.47) applies if customers are classified as enterprise; the self-service rate ($0.32) is used above. Neither platform marks up payment processing. Both pass through to Stripe or another PSP.

For bootstrapped teams, solopreneurs, and early-stage startups building before they have revenue, the gap is material. Paying $5,000+/year for billing infrastructure before the first customer is a different decision than paying $90/month and scaling from there. At growth and enterprise scale the Stigg contract minimum disappears and per-subscription and per-seat economics take over, where $448/month is small relative to the packaging value Stigg provides. Fit decides the choice; price is the tiebreaker until you have revenue to spend.

When to choose Stigg

• You want one system for feature gating and billing. Stigg's unified feature model treats Boolean features, seats, and metered features as one primitive. It's closer to having LaunchDarkly and a billing system in one place than Credyt is.
• Packaging flexibility is a core requirement. Add-ons that stack, good/better/best tiers, feature flags, seats, and credits all in one unified model.
• You need fine-grained stacked-grant drawdown rules. Per-grant priority, category, prepaid pools, and custom consumption formulas go deeper than Credyt's purpose-driven priority and drawdown.
• You are already on Zuora or Chargebee, not just Stripe, and you want a control layer that coordinates across them.
• You are embedding billing UI inside an existing product surface and want React, JavaScript, and Vue components with theme props and a no-code designer.

When to choose Credyt

• You are building your product with AI tools. Claude Code, Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, or Windsurf drive the integration from inside the editor via Credyt's MCP server, AI skills, and AI-friendly docs, so shipping billing is a prompt rather than a doc-reading session.
• You need margin observability, not just revenue reporting. Vendor costs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and compute providers are ingested alongside usage, with per-customer, per-workload, and per-feature margin visible in real time.
• You want to monetize in real time, in a matter of hours. Real-time usage-based billing live the same day, not weeks of packaging modeling.
• You want a hosted, branded customer portal that customers reach through a link, not an embed kit. Top-ups, auto-top-up thresholds, and payment methods work without frontend engineering.
• You want overdraft-by-default. Let usage proceed when balance goes negative within configurable limits, then reconcile, instead of hard-gating on every call.
• You want transparent, public pricing with no contract minimum at small to mid scale.
• Your product is AI-shaped (wallet, metered usage, margin visibility) and you don't need expressive packaging, feature flags unified with seats, or stacked-grant drawdown rules.

Teams evaluating alternatives to Stigg that want margin observability on top of wallet controls, and an integration they can drive from inside Claude Code, Cursor, or Lovable, tend to land on this set of requirements.

How do the architectures differ?

Platform scope: observability on top of control and monetization

Stigg is focused on control (entitlements, packaging, feature flags, seats) and monetization (pricing, credits, billing orchestration across Stripe, Zuora, or Chargebee). Its usage reporting tracks consumption and revenue; cost ingestion is not part of the product.

Credyt covers the same control and monetization ground and adds observability. Vendor costs (OpenAI, Anthropic, compute providers) are ingested alongside usage events and linked at the event or customer level. Dashboards surface gross revenue, total cost, net revenue, and margin per event, per customer, and per product in real time.

AI unit economics change request by request. Claude Opus is priced differently from Claude Haiku, which is priced differently from GPT-4, which is priced differently from Llama on your own GPUs. Without cost ingestion, revenue is visible but margin isn't. You can't see which customers, workflows, or features are actually profitable. For AI teams where model selection is a per-call decision, real-time economic control is part of billing, not an add-on.

Who drives the integration: humans or AI tools

Stigg ships standard SDKs for human engineers: Node, Python, Go, Ruby, Java, and a gRPC sidecar for backend, plus React, JavaScript, and Vue components for UI. Its docs are written for people to read and integrate. No MCP server, AI skills, or AI-assistant workflow is documented.

Credyt ships an MCP server at mcp.credyt.ai, AI skills, and documentation designed for AI assistants to consume. Claude Code, Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, and Windsurf read the API surface, scaffold the wallet, wire up the hosted portal, and set up metering from inside the editor. The work happens in prompts, not page-by-page doc reading.

For teams building AI products inside AI IDEs, the integration is happening in the editor anyway. A billing platform designed to interoperate with that workflow collapses setup from days of doc-reading to a prompt.

Hosted portal vs embedded widgets

Credyt ships a hosted, branded billing portal. The customer clicks a link, lands on a page that shows live balance, tops up through Stripe Checkout, sets an auto-top-up threshold, and manages payment methods. No frontend engineering to ship the first version.

Stigg ships embeddable portal widgets for React, JavaScript, and Vue. The widget renders inside the host product, with theme props, a no-code designer for layout, and composable components for pricing tables, checkout flows, and customer portals.

A hosted portal answers: "I need a working billing page today and I don't want to own frontend code for it." An embedded widget answers: "billing UI needs to live inside my product with the same shell, navigation, and components as the rest of the app." Both are valid. Teams reach for them at different points in product maturity.

Bottom line

Stigg goes deeper on control than Credyt. The unified feature model combines what a team would otherwise assemble from a feature-flag service like LaunchDarkly and a billing system, giving one source of truth for entitlements, seats, packaging, and metered usage. If feature gating, packaging expressiveness, and stacked-grant drawdown rules are the hard problem, that depth is the reason to pick Stigg.

Credyt solves a different hard problem: AI unit economics. Observe, control, and monetize in one platform, with vendor cost ingestion and per-customer margin visibility that Stigg doesn't offer. Feature gating lives in your own system, driven by the customer wallet state Credyt exposes. For teams building AI products with AI tools, Credyt is also administered through Claude Code, Cursor, Lovable, or ChatGPT rather than through a docs tab. Close-call tiebreaker: if feature gating and packaging depth matter more than margin observability and AI-tool workflow, pick Stigg. Otherwise, pick Credyt.

Frequently asked questions

Can I set up Credyt or Stigg from inside Claude Code, Cursor, or Lovable?

Credyt yes, Stigg no. Credyt ships an MCP server at mcp.credyt.ai, AI skills, and AI-friendly documentation, so Claude Code, Cursor, Lovable, Bolt, and Windsurf can handle the integration inside the editor. Stigg documents standard SDKs (Node, Python, Go, Ruby, Java, gRPC, React, JavaScript, Vue) for human engineers but has no MCP server or AI-assistant workflow.

Can I see per-customer margin with Stigg?

Stigg's usage reporting tracks consumption and revenue but doesn't ingest vendor cost data, so margin per customer isn't available (Stigg Docs, accessed April 2026). Credyt ingests vendor costs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and compute providers and links them at the event or customer level, exposing real-time gross margin per customer, per workload, and per feature. This is the observability pillar Credyt adds on top of the control and monetization scope that both platforms share.

How fast can I get Credyt or Stigg into production?

Credyt targets hours to a working integration: a wallet, a hosted portal, a single POST for usage, and Stripe Checkout wired up by default. Teams integrate via TypeScript/Node.js and Python SDKs, the REST API, or through an AI coding tool over MCP. Stigg's documented production integrations take weeks for meaningful packaging and months for complex deployments, reflecting the modeling overhead that comes with the platform's expressiveness (Stigg, accessed April 2026). Sandbox can be running in days on either platform.

Does Stigg handle feature flags?

Yes. Stigg's unified feature model covers Boolean features, Numeric features (like seats), and Metered features in one primitive, so feature flags, seat allocations, and metered entitlements share a source of truth (Stigg Docs, accessed April 2026). Credyt does not unify feature flags with billing. Teams typically keep a separate feature-flag service.

Can I do stacked grants with drawdown priority in Credyt?

Yes, with less fine-grained control than Stigg. Credyt supports grant-level prioritization and drawdown driven by a grant's purpose (bundled vs promotional vs paid top-up), with expiry and rollover configurable per grant (Credyt docs). For most use cases this is sufficient. Stigg's Credits Suite goes deeper with per-grant priority, category, prepaid pools, and custom consumption formulas, so if those rules are load-bearing, Stigg is the closer fit.

I already use Stripe. Do I need to switch for either platform?

No. Both platforms sit on top of Stripe. Stigg is billing-system agnostic and orchestrates over Stripe, Zuora, or Chargebee. Credyt uses Stripe as the default PSP and supports external PSPs.

Neither platform replaces your existing payment processor. If you've already run into where Stripe's metered billing runs into limits, both platforms give you a way to extend Stripe rather than rebuild it.