head to head · open source
flowable-engine vs workflow-core
flowable-engine has 9,635 GitHub stars, 2,904 forks, 411 open issues and last shipped 17 days ago. workflow-core has 5,939 stars, 1,260 forks, 133 open issues and last shipped yesterday. flowable-engine leads on adoption by 62% (9,635 vs 5,939 stars). flowable-engine is written in Java under Apache-2.0; workflow-core is written in C# under MIT. flowable-engine has attracted 30% as many forks as stars, workflow-core 21%. workflow-core was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 2 topic tags (workflow, workflow-engine), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.
Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.
← all 20902 open source comparisons
Side by side
| flowable-engine | workflow-core | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 9.6K | ★ 5.9K |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Written in | Java | C# |
| Last push | 2026-10-18 | 2026-11-03 |
| Forks | ⑂ 2.9K | ⑂ 1.3K |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick flowable-engine if
- You weight community size — 9.6K stars and counting
- You want the Apache-2.0 license terms
- Your stack matches Java
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
pick workflow-core if
- You want the workflow-core feature set and don't need the biggest community
- You prefer the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches C#
- You evaluated both and workflow-core fits your workflow better
About flowable-engine
Flowable ======== Homepage: flowable / flowəb(ə)l / a compact and highly efficient workflow and Business Process Management (BPM) platform for developers, system admins and business users. a lightning fast, tried and tested BPMN process engine, CMMN case engine and DMN rule engine written in Java. It is Apache 2.0 licensed open source, with a committed community. can run embedded in a Java application, or as a service on a server, a cluster, and in the cloud. It integrates perfectly with Spring. With a rich Java and REST API, it is the ideal engine for orchestrating human or system activities. Introduction…
read the full flowable-engine overview →
About workflow-core
Workflow Core Workflow Core is a light weight embeddable workflow engine targeting .NET Standard. Think: long running processes with multiple tasks that need to track state. It supports pluggable persistence and concurrency providers to allow for multi node clusters. Announcements New related project: Conductor Conductor is a stand alone workflow server as opposed to a library that uses Workflow Core internally. It exposes an API that allows you to store workflow definitions, track running workflows, manage events and define custom steps and scripts for usage in your workflows. Documentation See Tutorial here…
read the full workflow-core overview →
More in Infrastructure & Operations
Related comparisons
More Orchestration & Scheduling projects
Compare either of these against the rest of the Orchestration & Scheduling field.
Frequently asked questions
Is flowable-engine or workflow-core more popular?
flowable-engine has 9,635 GitHub stars and workflow-core has 5,939. flowable-engine has the larger community by that measure.
Are flowable-engine and workflow-core free?
Both are open source. flowable-engine is licensed under Apache-2.0 and workflow-core under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between flowable-engine and workflow-core?
flowable-engine is written in Java and workflow-core in C#. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.
Which should I choose, flowable-engine or workflow-core?
Choose flowable-engine if you want the larger community (9,635 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose workflow-core if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.