Softwr

Automation Integration · head to head

Activiti vs Hatchet

Activiti logo

Activiti

Automation Integration

Apache 2.0 BPMN engine under Hyland, from which Flowable and Camunda were forked

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Hatchet logo

Hatchet

Automation Integration

Postgres-backed distributed task queue and workflow engine for Python, TypeScript and Go

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Activiti the last stable release was 8.2.0 in January 2024, and while release candidate builds continue, a two-year gap between stable versions is a real risk signal for a production dependency.; Hatchet postgres as the queue backend simplifies operations but sets a throughput ceiling, and very high task rates require database tuning or partitioning work that a purpose-built queue would not demand.
  • They diverge on capability: Activiti covers BPMN 2.0 engine, Hatchet covers Postgres-backed queue.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Activiti and Hatchet actually diverge.

Attributes where Activiti and Hatchet differ
AttributeActivitiHatchet
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feePer month by task run count
PlatformsLinux, Windows, Docker, KubernetesLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Automation Integration).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Activiti

  • BPMN 2.0 engine
  • Activiti Cloud
  • Modeler
  • Java and REST APIs
  • Pluggable persistence
  • Identity integration

Only in Hatchet

  • Postgres-backed queue
  • Durable execution
  • DAG workflows
  • Concurrency and fairness
  • Rate limiting
  • Cron and scheduling
  • Multi-language SDKs
  • Self-hosting

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Activiti

  • An Alfresco or Hyland content services deployment where Activiti is already the embedded workflow enginenot Hatchet
  • A Java application that needs to embed a BPMN engine as a library under a permissive licencenot Hatchet
  • An organisation that has ruled out Camunda 8 on licence grounds and needs an Apache 2.0 alternativenot Hatchet
  • Document-centric approval workflows where the process engine sits inside the content management stack rather than beside itnot Hatchet

Hatchet

  • An AI product running long agent pipelines that must survive worker restarts and resume mid-workflownot Activiti
  • A team that outgrew Celery and wants concurrency keys, fairness and rate limiting without building themnot Activiti
  • An engineering group that wants durable execution self-hosted with no datastore beyond the Postgres they already runnot Activiti
  • A multi-tenant SaaS that needs one noisy customer's jobs not to starve everyone else'snot Activiti

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Activiti

  • The last stable release was 8.2.0 in January 2024, and while release candidate builds continue, a two-year gap between stable versions is a real risk signal for a production dependency.
  • Both Camunda and Flowable forked away and took large parts of the contributor base with them, so the community, tutorials and third-party tooling around Activiti are much thinner than around either fork.
  • Commercial support is only realistically available by buying Hyland Alfresco subscriptions, so there is no way to pay for Activiti support on its own.
  • Activiti Cloud imposes a distributed architecture of several Spring Boot services plus Keycloak, which is heavy for teams who simply wanted an embeddable engine.
  • Documentation is dated and partly split between old Alfresco sites and Hyland Connect, and the transition between Activiti 6, 7 and 8 architectures makes much of the older material actively misleading.

Hatchet

  • Postgres as the queue backend simplifies operations but sets a throughput ceiling, and very high task rates require database tuning or partitioning work that a purpose-built queue would not demand.
  • Data retention on the managed tiers is three days on Team and seven on Scale, which is short for debugging intermittent failures and forces you to export run history elsewhere.
  • The step from the free tier to Team is 500 US dollars a month plus usage, which is a large increment for a small team that simply needs a production SLA.
  • Hatchet is a young company in a category with Temporal, Inngest and cloud-native alternatives already established, so ecosystem, hiring pool and third-party material are all thin.
  • Self-hosting the MIT engine is realistic but you then run the engine, its Postgres and its workers yourself, and the managed features such as audit logs and support are not part of that.

Pricing, plan by plan

Activiti

Free
  • ActivitiFree
    • Apache 2.0 licence
    • Embeddable Java library or Activiti Cloud services
    • No usage limits

Hatchet

Free
  • DeveloperFree
    • First 100,000 task runs included
    • $10 per million task runs after
    • No card required
  • Team$500/month
    • Usage billed on top of the base fee
    • 10 users and 5 tenants
    • 3 day data retention
  • Scale$1000/month
    • Unlimited users and tenants
    • 7 day data retention
    • Audit logs
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • 300 million plus runs a month
    • Latency guarantees and custom SLAs
    • SSO and audit logging

Which should you pick?

Choose Activiti if

  • You need bpmn 2.0 engine.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
  • You also want activiti cloud.
Activiti review

Choose Hatchet if

  • You need postgres-backed queue.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
  • You also want durable execution.
Hatchet review

Questions people ask

Is Activiti or Hatchet better?
Neither clearly leads. Activiti starts at Free and Hatchet at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Activiti or Hatchet?
Activiti starts at Free and Hatchet at Free.
Does Activiti or Hatchet run on more platforms?
Activiti runs on Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes. Hatchet runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
Can I use Activiti for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Activiti best used for?
Activiti is most often used for an alfresco or hyland content services deployment where activiti is already the embedded workflow engine, a java application that needs to embed a bpmn engine as a library under a permissive licence, an organisation that has ruled out camunda 8 on licence grounds and needs an apache 2.0 alternative, document-centric approval workflows where the process engine sits inside the content management stack rather than beside it. Of those, an alfresco or hyland content services deployment where activiti is already the embedded workflow engine and a java application that needs to embed a bpmn engine as a library under a permissive licence are not what Hatchet is typically brought in for.
What can Activiti do that Hatchet cannot?
Activiti covers BPMN 2.0 engine, Activiti Cloud, Modeler, Java and REST APIs. Hatchet covers Postgres-backed queue, Durable execution, DAG workflows, Concurrency and fairness.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Activiti: Is Activiti still maintained?

Yes, Hyland continues to publish builds, but the last stable release was 8.2.0 in January 2024.

Hatchet: Is Hatchet open source?

Yes, the engine is MIT licensed and can be self-hosted, with a managed cloud offered alongside.

Activiti: What is its relationship to Camunda and Flowable?

Both are forks of Activiti: Camunda in 2013 and Flowable in 2016, when core developers left Alfresco.

Hatchet: What does it cost?

Free for the first 100,000 task runs, then 10 US dollars per million. Team is 500 US dollars a month plus usage; Scale is 1,000.

Activiti: What licence is it?

Apache 2.0, which distinguishes it from Camunda 8’s source-available licence.

Hatchet: Why Postgres as the queue?

So durable task state lives in a database your team already backs up, replicates and can inspect with SQL, instead of a second system.

Activiti: Should I choose Activiti for a new project?

Only if the Apache licence or an existing Alfresco deployment is decisive. Flowable and Camunda have far larger ecosystems.

Hatchet: How does it compare with Temporal?

Lighter to adopt and operate, with a much smaller ecosystem and a lower throughput ceiling from the Postgres backend.

Share

Related pages

More on Activiti

More on Hatchet

Keep looking

Other head to heads