head to head · open source

compose vs Archon

compose has 38,175 GitHub stars, 5,817 forks, 111 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Archon has 23,495 stars, 3,474 forks, 321 open issues and last shipped yesterday. compose leads on adoption by 62% (38,175 vs 23,495 stars). compose is written in Go under Apache-2.0; Archon is written in TypeScript under MIT. compose has attracted 15% as many forks as stars, Archon 15%. compose was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

compose ★ 38K Archon ★ 23K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

compose Archon
GitHub stars ★ 38K ★ 23K
License Apache-2.0 MIT
Written in Go TypeScript
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 5.8K ⑂ 3.5K
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick compose if

  • You weight community size — 38K stars and counting
  • You want the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full compose profile →

pick Archon if

  • You want the Archon feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches TypeScript
  • You evaluated both and Archon fits your workflow better

full Archon profile →

About compose

Docker Compose is an Apache 2.0 licensed Go tool that defines and runs multi container applications on Docker from a single Compose file, aimed at developers and operators who need several containers to start together as one isolated application.

read the full compose overview →

About Archon

Archon is an open source workflow engine for AI coding agents, written in TypeScript and released under the MIT license. It lives in the AI coding ecosystem, alongside tools such as Claude Code, and is distributed through the Bun runtime and the GitHub CLI. The project describes itself as a harness builder: it lets a developer encode a development process as a YAML workflow and then run that workflow reliably across projects. Workflows are stored in a .archon/workflows/ directory and committed to the repository, so the same definition can be invoked from the CLI, a web UI, Slack, Telegram, or GitHub.…

read the full Archon overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

Immich ★ 114K Uptime Kuma ★ 91K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K NetData ★ 81K Elasticsearch ★ 78K

Related comparisons

compose vs conductor compose vs xxl-job compose vs gitleaks compose vs kestra compose vs haystack compose vs rancher compose vs prefect conductor vs xxl-job uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana netdata vs grafana uptime-kuma vs huginn worldmonitor vs huginn immich vs paperless-ngx immich vs ceph immich vs filestash immich vs garage immich vs storj immich vs alarik immich vs spinifex paperless-ngx vs ceph

More Orchestration & Scheduling projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Orchestration & Scheduling field.

compose vs conductor compose vs xxl-job compose vs gitleaks compose vs Kestra compose vs haystack compose vs rancher compose vs Prefect compose vs Temporal compose vs rowboat compose vs Trigger compose vs dolphinscheduler compose vs agent-framework

Frequently asked questions

Is compose or Archon more popular?

compose has 38,175 GitHub stars and Archon has 23,495. compose has the larger community by that measure.

Are compose and Archon free?

Both are open source. compose is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Archon under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between compose and Archon?

compose is written in Go and Archon in TypeScript. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, compose or Archon?

Choose compose if you want the larger community (38,175 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose Archon if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.