Chadburn 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?
Chadburn
Job scheduler for Docker environments using container labels
VS
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
| Feature | Chadburn | Conductor OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 32 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 79 | ★ 32,066 |
| First released | 2021 | 2016 |
| Replaces | cron | AWS Step Functions, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Choose Chadburn if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Chadburn or Conductor OSS better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Chadburn is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Chadburn and Conductor OSS free and open-source?
Yes. Chadburn is licensed under MIT and Conductor OSS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Chadburn and Conductor OSS with Docker?
Chadburn: yes. Conductor OSS: yes.