Conductor OSS vs Restate
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
Restate
Durable execution engine for resilient applications
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Restate |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | BUSL-1.1 |
| Language | Java | Rust |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 4,263 |
| First released | 2016 | 2023 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Temporal |
Why pick each one
Choose Restate if…
- Released under the BUSL-1.1 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (4.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in Rust
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Restate better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Restate is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Restate free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Restate under BUSL-1.1. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Restate with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Restate: yes.