Automa 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?
Automa
Browser automation via drag-and-drop visual workflows
VS
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
| Feature | Automa | Conductor OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Vue | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | source | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 21,543 | ★ 32,066 |
| First released | 2021 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Zapier, UiPath | AWS Step Functions, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Choose Automa if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Mature project with 21.5k GitHub stars
- Written in Vue
Frequently asked questions
Is Automa or Conductor OSS better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Automa is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Automa and Conductor OSS free and open-source?
Yes. Automa is licensed under MIT and Conductor OSS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Automa and Conductor OSS with Docker?
Automa: check the project docs for container support. Conductor OSS: yes.