Conductor OSS vs Supercronic
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
Supercronic
Crontab-compatible job runner built for containers
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Supercronic |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 32 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 2,596 |
| First released | 2016 | 2017 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | cron |
Why pick each one
Choose Supercronic if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.6k GitHub stars)
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Supercronic better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while Supercronic is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and Supercronic free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Supercronic under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Supercronic with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Supercronic: yes.