Activepieces vs Conductor OSS
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted automation & workflows options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Activepieces
Open-source no-code business automation
VS
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
| Feature | Activepieces | Conductor OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 23,620 | ★ 32,066 |
| First released | 2022 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Zapier, Make | AWS Step Functions, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Choose Activepieces if…
- Truly open-source license
- Friendly no-code UI
- Active development
Frequently asked questions
Is Activepieces or Conductor OSS better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Activepieces is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Activepieces and Conductor OSS free and open-source?
Yes. Activepieces is licensed under MIT and Conductor OSS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Activepieces and Conductor OSS with Docker?
Activepieces: yes. Conductor OSS: yes.