Apache Airflow 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?
Apache Airflow
Programmatically author, schedule and monitor workflows
VS
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
| Feature | Apache Airflow | Conductor OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 4,096 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, helm | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 46,409 | ★ 32,066 |
| First released | 2015 | 2016 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Azure Data Factory | AWS Step Functions, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is Apache Airflow or Conductor OSS better?
Neither is universally better. Apache Airflow has the larger community; both share a hard setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Apache Airflow and Conductor OSS free and open-source?
Yes. Apache Airflow is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Conductor OSS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Apache Airflow and Conductor OSS with Docker?
Apache Airflow: yes. Conductor OSS: yes.