OpenRig vs Conductor
OpenRig and Conductor both coordinate automated workflows, but they operate at different abstraction levels. Conductor (offered commercially as Orkes) is a general-purpose workflow engine: you define tasks as a directed graph, workers execute each node, and the engine tracks state across steps. OpenRig is specifically designed for coding-agent teams: it manages Claude Code and Codex sessions as persistent specialists with retained context, stable seat addresses, and work queues that survive reboots.
| Feature | OpenRig | Conductor |
|---|
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 (OSS) / Proprietary (Orkes SaaS) |
| Self-hosting | Yes (local daemon, SQLite) | Yes (OSS) or managed (Orkes cloud) |
| Agent types | Claude Code, Codex, Pi | Any worker via SDK |
| Topology definition | YAML RigSpec | JSON workflow DSL or code SDK |
| Persistent seat identity | Yes | No (stateless workers) |
| Cross-agent messaging | rig send, rig queue | Not native; requires workflow steps |
| Management UI | Terminal UI (TUI) | Web dashboard (Orkes) |
OpenRig is the better choice for teams building coding-agent workflows where persistent context matters. A dev-app@factory seat that made an architectural decision last month retains that decision the next time it is asked about it; Conductor workers are stateless by design and hold no memory between executions.
Conductor is the better fit when you need a general-purpose workflow engine where any worker language or service participates. If your orchestration spans non-coding agents, microservices, external APIs, and human approval gates in a broader system, Conductor's worker model and retry infrastructure cover ground OpenRig does not target. The Orkes SaaS tier adds monitoring, access control, and enterprise support that a self-hosted OpenRig instance would need to build separately.