Softwr

Automation Integration · head to head

Flowable vs Hatchet

Flowable logo

Flowable

Automation Integration

Apache 2.0 BPMN, CMMN and DMN engine from the team that originally built Activiti

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: Flowable the open source engine is genuinely usable but ships without the modelling studio, work application and admin console, so an open source deployment means building your own user interfaces before anyone can use it.; 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: Flowable 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 Flowable and Hatchet actually diverge.

Attributes where Flowable and Hatchet differ
AttributeFlowableHatchet
Pricing modelquotePer month by task run count
PlatformsLinux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes, CloudLinux, 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 Flowable

  • BPMN 2.0 engine
  • CMMN case management
  • DMN decision tables
  • Spring Boot integration
  • Modelling studio
  • Task and case application
  • REST APIs
  • History and audit

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.

Flowable

  • An insurer automating claims handling where each case follows a different path and BPMN alone cannot express itnot Hatchet
  • A bank embedding process orchestration inside an existing Spring Boot estate rather than buying a separate platformnot Hatchet
  • A team leaving Activiti or jBPM that wants the same API family with active commercial maintenancenot Hatchet
  • A regulated organisation needing complete process history and decision table audit trails for supervisorsnot Hatchet

Hatchet

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

Where each one falls short

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

Flowable

  • The open source engine is genuinely usable but ships without the modelling studio, work application and admin console, so an open source deployment means building your own user interfaces before anyone can use it.
  • It expects Java engineering capacity; teams looking for a business-user low-code automation tool will find the modelling and deployment cycle far too technical.
  • Enterprise pricing is not published and is quoted per deployment, leaving buyers without a benchmark against Camunda or IBM alternatives.
  • The Activiti fork left three engines with related APIs and overlapping documentation in circulation, and search results routinely return advice for the wrong one.
  • Flowable AG is a small Swiss company relative to its competitors, so the partner network, training market and pool of engineers with production experience are all limited outside Europe.

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

Flowable

Free
  • Flowable Open SourceFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed BPMN, CMMN and DMN engines
    • Embeddable Java library or standalone apps
    • No modelling studio or enterprise applications
  • Flowable Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Modelling studio, work application and admin console
    • Connectors, forms and advanced identity management
    • Support with SLA and version maintenance

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 Flowable if

  • You need bpmn 2.0 engine.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
  • You also want cmmn case management.
Flowable 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 Flowable or Hatchet better?
Neither clearly leads. Flowable 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, Flowable or Hatchet?
Flowable starts at Free and Hatchet at Free.
Does Flowable or Hatchet run on more platforms?
Flowable runs on Linux, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud. Hatchet runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
Can I use Flowable for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Flowable best used for?
Flowable is most often used for an insurer automating claims handling where each case follows a different path and bpmn alone cannot express it, a bank embedding process orchestration inside an existing spring boot estate rather than buying a separate platform, a team leaving activiti or jbpm that wants the same api family with active commercial maintenance, a regulated organisation needing complete process history and decision table audit trails for supervisors. Of those, an insurer automating claims handling where each case follows a different path and bpmn alone cannot express it and a bank embedding process orchestration inside an existing spring boot estate rather than buying a separate platform are not what Hatchet is typically brought in for.
What can Flowable do that Hatchet cannot?
Flowable covers BPMN 2.0 engine, CMMN case management, DMN decision tables, Spring Boot integration. Hatchet covers Postgres-backed queue, Durable execution, DAG workflows, Concurrency and fairness.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Flowable: Is Flowable open source?

Yes, the BPMN, CMMN and DMN engines are Apache 2.0. The modelling studio and enterprise applications are commercial.

Hatchet: Is Hatchet open source?

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

Flowable: How does it relate to Activiti and jBPM?

The same core developers built jBPM, then Activiti, then forked Activiti in 2016 to create Flowable.

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.

Flowable: What does Flowable Enterprise cost?

Nothing is published. It is quoted per deployment by the vendor.

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.

Flowable: Why choose it over Camunda?

CMMN case management is a first-class engine, which matters when work is exception-driven rather than a fixed sequence.

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 Flowable

More on Hatchet

Keep looking

Other head to heads