head to head · open source
workflow-core vs openworkflow
workflow-core has 5,939 GitHub stars, 1,260 forks, 133 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. openworkflow has 1,347 stars, 73 forks, 12 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. workflow-core leads on adoption by 341% (5,939 vs 1,347 stars). workflow-core is written in C# under MIT; openworkflow is written in TypeScript under Apache-2.0. workflow-core has attracted 21% as many forks as stars, openworkflow 5%. openworkflow 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
| workflow-core | openworkflow | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 5.9K | ★ 1.3K |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Written in | C# | TypeScript |
| Last push | 2026-11-03 | 2026-11-03 |
| Forks | ⑂ 1.3K | ⑂ 73 |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick workflow-core if
- You weight community size — 5.9K stars and counting
- You want the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches C#
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
pick openworkflow if
- You want the openworkflow feature set and don't need the biggest community
- You prefer the Apache-2.0 license terms
- Your stack matches TypeScript
- You evaluated both and openworkflow fits your workflow better
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 →
About openworkflow
OpenWorkflow OpenWorkflow is a TypeScript framework for building durable, resumable workflows that can pause for seconds or months, survive crashes and deploys, and resume exactly where they left off all without extra servers to manage. Quick Start The CLI will guide you through setup and generate everything you need to get started. Documentation Documentation Quick Start Guide Core Concepts Advanced Patterns Production Checklist OpenTelemetry Architecture Read ARCHITECTURE.md for a deep dive into how OpenWorkflow works under the hood. Examples Check out examples/ for working examples. Contributing We welcome…
read the full openworkflow 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 workflow-core or openworkflow more popular?
workflow-core has 5,939 GitHub stars and openworkflow has 1,347. workflow-core has the larger community by that measure.
Are workflow-core and openworkflow free?
Both are open source. workflow-core is licensed under MIT and openworkflow under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between workflow-core and openworkflow?
workflow-core is written in C# and openworkflow 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, workflow-core or openworkflow?
Choose workflow-core if you want the larger community (5,939 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose openworkflow if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.