autobrr 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?
autobrr
Automation tool for filtering and processing release feeds
VS
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
| Feature | autobrr | Conductor OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | GPL-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,934 | ★ 32,066 |
| First released | 2021 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Zapier | AWS Step Functions, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Choose autobrr if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.9k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is autobrr or Conductor OSS better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while autobrr is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are autobrr and Conductor OSS free and open-source?
Yes. autobrr is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Conductor OSS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run autobrr and Conductor OSS with Docker?
autobrr: yes. Conductor OSS: yes.