SHSelfHostIndex

Conductor OSS vs FlowForge Lite

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?
CO Conductor OSS Microservices and workflow orchestration engine VS FL FlowForge Lite Visual flow-based automation for connecting devices and APIs
FeatureConductor OSSFlowForge Lite
CategoryAutomation & WorkflowsAutomation & Workflows
LicenseApache-2.0Apache-2.0
LanguageJavaJavaScript
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM2,048 MB256 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, bare-metaldocker, bare-metal, binary
GitHub stars★ 32,066★ 395
First released20162021
ReplacesAWS Step Functions, CamundaZapier, IFTTT

Why pick each one

Choose Conductor OSS if…

  • Battle-tested at scale
  • Language-agnostic workers
Conductor OSS details

Choose FlowForge Lite if…

  • Approachable visual model
  • Large node ecosystem
FlowForge Lite details

Frequently asked questions

Is Conductor OSS or FlowForge Lite better?

Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while FlowForge Lite is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are Conductor OSS and FlowForge Lite free and open-source?

Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and FlowForge Lite under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Conductor OSS and FlowForge Lite with Docker?

Conductor OSS: yes. FlowForge Lite: yes.

Related comparisons