Conductor OSS vs n8n
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
n8n
Workflow automation with a node-based editor
| Feature | Conductor OSS | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Sustainable Use License |
| Language | Java | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 199,764 |
| First released | 2016 | 2019 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Zapier, Make |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or n8n better?
n8n is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Conductor OSS if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Conductor OSS and n8n free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and n8n under Sustainable Use License. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and n8n with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. n8n: yes.