head to head · open source

compose vs loonflow

compose has 38,175 GitHub stars, 5,817 forks, 111 open issues and last shipped yesterday. loonflow has 2,089 stars, 704 forks, 19 open issues and last shipped 4 months ago. compose leads on adoption by 1,727% (38,175 vs 2,089 stars). compose is written in Go under Apache-2.0; loonflow is written in TypeScript under AGPL-3.0. compose has attracted 15% as many forks as stars, loonflow 34%. 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 loonflow ★ 2.1K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

compose loonflow
GitHub stars ★ 38K ★ 2.1K
License Apache-2.0 AGPL-3.0
Written in Go TypeScript
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-05-25
Forks ⑂ 5.8K ⑂ 704
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 loonflow if

  • You want the loonflow feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the AGPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches TypeScript
  • You evaluated both and loonflow fits your workflow better

full loonflow 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 loonflow

Loonflow is an open source process automation platform for enterprises, built around ticket and workflow operations. It lives in the Django and Python web ecosystem, and the README also identifies React and MUI for the interface.

read the full loonflow 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 Archon compose vs Temporal compose vs rowboat compose vs Trigger compose vs dolphinscheduler

Frequently asked questions

Is compose or loonflow more popular?

compose has 38,175 GitHub stars and loonflow has 2,089. compose has the larger community by that measure.

Are compose and loonflow free?

Both are open source. compose is licensed under Apache-2.0 and loonflow under AGPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between compose and loonflow?

compose is written in Go and loonflow 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 loonflow?

Choose compose if you want the larger community (38,175 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose loonflow if its feature set, stack or AGPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.