Conductor OSS vs Inngest
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
Inngest
Event-driven workflow and background job platform
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Inngest |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 5,701 |
| First released | 2016 | 2021 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Zapier, AWS Step Functions |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Inngest better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Inngest is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Inngest free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Inngest under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Inngest with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Inngest: yes.