Browserless 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?
Browserless
Headless browser automation as a self-hosted service
VS
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
| Feature | Browserless | Conductor OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | SSPL-1.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 13,562 | ★ 32,066 |
| First released | 2017 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Browserbase | AWS Step Functions, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Choose Browserless if…
- Released under the SSPL-1.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 13.6k GitHub stars
- Written in TypeScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Browserless or Conductor OSS better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Browserless is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Browserless and Conductor OSS free and open-source?
Yes. Browserless is licensed under SSPL-1.0 and Conductor OSS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Browserless and Conductor OSS with Docker?
Browserless: yes. Conductor OSS: yes.