Conductor OSS vs UpSnap
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
UpSnap
Wake-on-LAN dashboard to power devices on and off
| Feature | Conductor OSS | UpSnap |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Automation & Workflows | Automation & Workflows |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 32,066 | ★ 6,112 |
| First released | 2016 | 2022 |
| Replaces | AWS Step Functions, Camunda | Commercial WOL apps |
Why pick each one
Choose UpSnap if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 6.1k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Conductor OSS or UpSnap better?
Neither is universally better. Conductor OSS has the larger community, while UpSnap is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conductor OSS and UpSnap free and open-source?
Yes. Conductor OSS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and UpSnap under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conductor OSS and UpSnap with Docker?
Conductor OSS: yes. UpSnap: yes.