Conductor OSS vs Gocron
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
Gocron
Self-hosted task scheduler with a web management UI
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Gocron |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 6,258 |
| First released | 2016 | 2017 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | cron, Rundeck |
Why pick each one
Choose Gocron if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 6.3k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Gocron better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Gocron is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Gocron free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Gocron under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Gocron with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Gocron: yes.