Conductor OSS vs Skyvern
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
Skyvern
Automate browser workflows with LLMs and computer vision
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Skyvern |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Java | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 4,096 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 22,708 |
| First released | 2016 | 2024 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | UiPath, Zapier |
Why pick each one
Choose Skyvern if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 22.7k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Skyvern better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Skyvern is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Skyvern free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Skyvern under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Skyvern with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Skyvern: yes.