Conductor OSS vs Temporal
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
Temporal
Durable execution platform for reliable distributed workflows
| Feature | Conductor OSS | Temporal |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 22,173 |
| First released | 2016 | 2019 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | AWS Step Functions, Azure Logic Apps |
Why pick each one
Choose Temporal if…
- Extremely reliable for long workflows
- Strong multi-language support
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or Temporal better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community; both share a hard setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Conductor OSS and Temporal free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Temporal under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and Temporal with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. Temporal: yes.