Conductor OSS vs go-crond
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
go-crond
Lightweight cron daemon for containers and minimal systems
| Feature | Conductor OSS | go-crond |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 32 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 142 |
| First released | 2016 | 2017 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | cron |
Why pick each one
Choose go-crond 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 Conductor OSS or go-crond better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while go-crond is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and go-crond free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and go-crond under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and go-crond with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. go-crond: yes.