Conductor OSS vs Procrastinate
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
Procrastinate
PostgreSQL-backed task queue for Python automation
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Procrastinate |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 1,360 |
| First released | 2016 | 2019 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Celery |
Why pick each one
Choose Procrastinate if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Active community (1.4k GitHub stars)
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Procrastinate better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Procrastinate is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Procrastinate free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Procrastinate under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Procrastinate with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Procrastinate: check the project docs for container support.