defract vs conductor

conductor runs your agents.
defract runs your process.

conductor is a good parallel runner — agent sessions in isolated worktrees, with diffs for you to review. defract is a different kind of tool: a full pipeline that carries a story from idea to shipped — guided stages, agent-reviewed merges, and memory so you never re-load context. all of it built to lower the load in your head.

open beta · macos · apple silicon + intel

they share one thing. both defract and conductor run agents in parallel, each in its own git worktree, isolated so they don't collide — and both run on claude code as the engine. that's where the overlap ends. they're two separate apps making different bets: conductor bets on being a fast runner; defract bets on the whole path a story takes between “start” and “shipped.”

why teams switch

three reasons to move to defract.
every one of them takes load off your head.

01

a workflow, not a row of chat windows

conductor gives you parallel agent sessions that you drive and track yourself. defract is built around a pipeline.

scope → design → architecture → implementation → review → release. you weigh in on the decisions at each gate; agents do the work in between. the structure lives in the tool, not in your head — so you stop holding the whole process in working memory.

02

reviewing is engineered, not dumped on you

conductor hands you raw diffs and makes you the reviewer of record. defract does the opposite.

agents review agents

types, lint and tests gate every merge, plus review agents for architecture, security and ux. code only progresses once it's signed off.

purpose-built review uis

the review you do is on a dedicated surface for each phase — scope, design, architecture, implementation — not an 800-line diff. you review intent and shape, fast.

03

you never re-load context

conductor sessions start largely fresh. defract remembers.

defract carries memory of your codebase, your decisions and your conventions — so you pick up monday exactly where you left off friday, without having to remember anything. and it compounds: every shipped story sharpens the next. the app gets smarter as it runs, and your life gets easier.

side by side

the honest comparison.

defract conductor
unit of work a story shipped to production a parallel agent session
structure guided pipeline: scope → design → architecture → implementation → review → release open agent sessions you drive and track yourself
code review agents review agents (types · lint · tests · architecture · security · ux); merge gated on sign-off you review the diffs yourself
what you review purpose-built uis per phase — intent and shape raw diffs
memory / context persistent memory of codebase, decisions, conventions — compounds over time no built-in cross-session memory
parallel git worktrees yes parity yes
models today claude code (codex · gemini · opencode in v1) claude code + codex, multi-model compare
platform macos (windows · linux in v1) macos
availability open beta — download now available now

where conductor is ahead today

we'll be straight: conductor is shipping now, it's mac-native and mature, and it already runs codex and multi-model compare. if you want a slick parallel runner today and you're happy being the reviewer, it's a reasonable pick.

defract is in open beta — claude code on macos for now, with codex, gemini, opencode and windows + linux landing in v1. the bet we're asking you to make is on the workflow and the lower cognitive load, not on a feature count.

hold less in your head.

download the open beta. if you've lived in conductor, we'd especially love your eyes on it.