Conductor OSS vs Flowable
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?
Conductor OSS
Microservices and workflow orchestration engine
VS
Flowable
Lightweight business process engine with BPMN and DMN
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Flowable |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Java | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 9,447 |
| First released | 2016 | 2016 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Microsoft Power Automate, Camunda |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Flowable better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community; both share a hard setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Conductor OSS and Flowable free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Flowable under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Flowable with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Flowable: yes.