Conductor OSS vs MQTTX Web
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
MQTTX Web
Your All-in-One MQTT Client Toolbox
| Feature | Conductor OSS | MQTTX Web |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | free |
| Language | Java | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, one-click |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 5,012 |
| First released | 2016 | 2022 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | — |
Why pick each one
Choose MQTTX Web if…
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- One-click install on common self-host platforms
- Mature project with 5k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or MQTTX Web better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while MQTTX Web is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and MQTTX Web free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and MQTTX Web under free. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and MQTTX Web with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. MQTTX Web: yes.