Conductor OSS vs Hatchet
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
Hatchet
Distributed background task queue with a modern UI
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Hatchet |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, kubernetes |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 7,685 |
| First released | 2016 | 2024 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Celery, Temporal |
Why pick each one
Choose Hatchet if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Mature project with 7.7k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Hatchet better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Hatchet is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Hatchet free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Hatchet under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Hatchet with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Hatchet: yes.