WorkflowForge Competitive Benchmark Analysis

Version: 2.2.0
Analysis Date: September 2026
Frameworks Tested:

  • WorkflowForge 2.2.0
  • Workflow Core
  • Elsa Workflows

Test System: Windows 11 (25H2), Intel 11th Gen i7-1185G7, .NET SDK 10.0.103
Runtimes: .NET 10.0.3, .NET 8.0.24, .NET Framework 4.8.1
BenchmarkDotNet: v0.15.8 (10 iterations per job)
Benchmark Run: September 15, 2026

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Across twelve benchmark scenarios on .NET 10.0, .NET 8.0, and .NET Framework 4.8 (10 iterations per job), WorkflowForge measured 2–583x faster execution and 1–533x less allocation than Workflow Core and Elsa for the same scripted logic.

Metric Value
Max Speed Advantage 583x faster (State Machine 25 transitions, .NET 10.0)
Max Memory Advantage 533x less allocation (Parallel 16 ops, .NET 10.0)
Min Execution Time 17.9μs (Creation Overhead, .NET 10.0)
Min Memory Footprint 4.21KB
583x
Faster (State Machine)
533x
Less Memory
17.9μs
Min Execution Time
4.21KB
Min Memory

Recorded ranges (same hardware, shared scripts):

  • WorkflowForge medians sit in the microsecond band (6.9–480μs) on these runs; Workflow Core and Elsa land in milliseconds (0.3–109ms) for the same scenarios.
  • Reported WorkflowForge allocations stay in kilobytes (4.46–272KB) while competitors often allocate megabytes (0.04–19MB) in the same tests.
  • The State Machine sweep posts the largest execution gap: up to ~584x versus Elsa on .NET 10.0 for 25 transitions.
  • Concurrent Execution spans 138–388x faster than Elsa across the three runtimes we tested.
  • Sequential scenarios measure 45–186x faster with comparatively small memory use.
  • The pattern holds across all twelve scenario types and three runtimes (Elsa omitted on .NET Framework 4.8 where unsupported).

Visual Performance Comparison

Execution Time (Lower is Better)

Runtime Scenario WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF Advantage
.NET 10.0 State Machine (25) 59.3μs 17133μs 34627μs 289-584x
.NET 8.0 State Machine (25) 59.7μs 13798μs 33184μs 231-556x
.NET FX 4.8 State Machine (25) 55.9μs 15166μs N/A† 272x
.NET 10.0 Concurrent (8 wf) 260μs 47648μs 99384μs 183-383x
.NET 8.0 Concurrent (8 wf) 284μs 39289μs 110279μs 138-388x
.NET FX 4.8 Concurrent (8 wf) 141μs 37556μs N/A† 267x
.NET 10.0 Sequential (10 ops) 119μs 7074μs 22028μs 60-186x
.NET 8.0 Sequential (10 ops) 127μs 5661μs 18257μs 45-144x
.NET FX 4.8 Sequential (10 ops) 110μs 5896μs N/A† 54x
State Machine Execution (25 Transitions)
State machine scenario, .NET 10.0 (see table)
59.3μs
17.1ms
34.6ms
.NET 10.0
59.7μs
13.8ms
33.2ms
.NET 8.0
55.9μs
15.2ms
.NET FX 4.8
WorkflowForge
Workflow Core
Elsa Workflows

Memory Allocation (Lower is Better)

Runtime Scenario WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF Advantage
.NET 10.0 Concurrent (8 wf) 158.66KB 3.04MB 19.07MB 20-123x
.NET 8.0 Concurrent (8 wf) 158.55KB 3.10MB 19.18MB 20-124x
.NET FX 4.8 Concurrent (8 wf) 272KB 3.66MB N/A† 14x
.NET 10.0 Parallel (16 ops) 8.75KB 120.43KB 4.56MB 14-533x
.NET 8.0 Parallel (16 ops) 9.00KB 122.84KB 4.67MB 14-531x
Memory Allocation - Concurrent Execution (8 Workflows)
Concurrent run: WorkflowForge ~155KB reported vs ~3.2MB / ~19.6MB in this harness
155KB
3.2MB
19.6MB
.NET 10.0
155KB
3.2MB
19.6MB
.NET 8.0
272KB
3.8MB
.NET FX 4.8
WorkflowForge
Workflow Core
Elsa Workflows

Scaling charts (workload sweeps)

Measured WorkflowForge gap widens as the scripted workload grows in these sweeps.

Scenario Scale WF vs Elsa
Sequential 1 op → 50 ops 86.2x → 205.5x
Loop/ForEach 10 items → 100 items 177.9x → 251.7x
Concurrent 1 wf → 8 wf 135.5x → 387.9x
Conditional 10 ops → 50 ops 143.4x → 208.9x
Execution Scaling - Advantage Grows with Workload
Larger scripted workloads; ratios from the sweep tables
101μs
1.0ms
8.7ms
Seq 1 op
301μs
29.1ms
61.9ms
Seq 50 ops
121μs
5.6ms
21.5ms
Loop 10
480μs
57.0ms
120.8ms
Loop 100
140μs
5.3ms
18.9ms
Conc 1 wf
284μs
39.3ms
110.3ms
Conc 8 wf
129μs
5.6ms
18.5ms
Cond 10
301μs
26.7ms
63.0ms
Cond 50
WorkflowForge
Workflow Core
Elsa Workflows

Scenario Breakdown

Scenario 1: Simple Sequential Workflow

Description: Execute operations sequentially (1, 5, 10, 25, 50 operations)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 10 ops)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 119μs 7074μs 22028μs
.NET 8.0 127μs 5661μs 18257μs
.NET FX 4.8 110μs 5896μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
1 101μs 1004μs 8710μs 9.9x faster 86.2x faster
5 116μs 3092μs 14825μs 26.7x faster 128.1x faster
10 127μs 5661μs 18257μs 44.7x faster 144.1x faster
25 230μs 12896μs 36010μs 56.1x faster 156.6x faster
50 301μs 29137μs 61941μs 96.7x faster 205.5x faster

Memory Allocation (10 ops, by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 18.22KB 408.23KB 3.01MB
.NET 8.0 18.20KB 415.16KB 3.05MB
.NET FX 4.8 40KB 528KB N/A†

Memory Allocation - Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
1 4.75KB 44.76KB 1.29MB
5 10.71KB 210.85KB 2.04MB
10 18.20KB 415.16KB 3.05MB
25 47.16KB 1.01MB 5.89MB
50 84.41KB 2.01MB 10.76MB

Scenario 2: Data Passing Workflow

Description: Pass data between operations (5, 10, 25 operations)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 10 ops)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 129μs 7070μs 22211μs
.NET 8.0 133μs 5571μs 20319μs
.NET FX 4.8 122μs 5904μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
5 124μs 3102μs 16469μs 25.1x faster 133.0x faster
10 133μs 5571μs 20319μs 42.0x faster 153.2x faster
25 228μs 13157μs 33767μs 57.7x faster 148.1x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 16.86KB 408KB 3.02MB
.NET 8.0 16.84KB 415.30KB 3.03MB
.NET FX 4.8 48KB 520KB N/A†

Memory Allocation - Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
5 10.09KB 210.85KB 2.06MB
10 16.84KB 415.30KB 3.03MB
25 39.27KB 1.01MB 5.89MB

Scenario 3: Conditional Branching

Description: Conditional execution paths (10, 25, 50 operations)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 10 ops)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 138μs 7117μs 21034μs
.NET 8.0 129μs 5559μs 18548μs
.NET FX 4.8 117μs 5892μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
10 129μs 5559μs 18548μs 43.0x faster 143.4x faster
25 225μs 13139μs 34946μs 58.5x faster 155.6x faster
50 301μs 26680μs 62951μs 88.5x faster 208.9x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 20KB 407.38KB 3.01MB
.NET 8.0 20KB 416.54KB 3.03MB
.NET FX 4.8 48KB 528KB N/A†

Memory Allocation - Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
10 20KB 416.54KB 3.03MB
25 46.86KB 1.01MB 5.89MB
50 88.20KB 2.01MB 10.78MB

Scenario 4: Loop/ForEach Processing

Description: Process collections with ForEach (10, 50, 100 items)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 50 items)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 322μs 32922μs 58601μs
.NET 8.0 337μs 26325μs 63196μs
.NET FX 4.8 326μs 28308μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Items WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
10 121μs 5592μs 21545μs 46.2x faster 177.9x faster
50 337μs 26325μs 63196μs 78.1x faster 187.6x faster
100 480μs 56989μs 120752μs 118.8x faster 251.7x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 96.20KB 1.96MB 10.89MB
.NET 8.0 96.18KB 2.01MB 10.76MB
.NET FX 4.8 168KB 2.40MB N/A†

Memory Allocation - Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Items WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
10 21KB 416.31KB 3.04MB
50 96.18KB 2.01MB 10.76MB
100 192.52KB 4.01MB 20.46MB

Scenario 5: Concurrent Execution

Description: Run multiple workflows concurrently (1, 4, 8 workers)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 8 workers)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 260μs 47648μs 99384μs
.NET 8.0 284μs 39289μs 110279μs
.NET FX 4.8 141μs 37556μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Workers WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
1 140μs 5325μs 18919μs 38.1x faster 135.5x faster
4 212μs 19182μs 58658μs 90.5x faster 276.8x faster
8 284μs 39289μs 110279μs 138.2x faster 387.9x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 158.66KB 3.04MB 19.07MB
.NET 8.0 158.55KB 3.10MB 19.18MB
.NET FX 4.8 272KB 3.66MB N/A†

Scenario 6: Error Handling

Description: Exception handling and error propagation

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 69.4μs 1225μs 9249μs
.NET 8.0 107μs 1027μs 7383μs
.NET FX 4.8 81.0μs 10284μs N/A†

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 7.90KB 43KB 1.12MB
.NET 8.0 9.24KB 44.91KB 1.08MB
.NET FX 4.8 0 B 2.74MB N/A†

Scenario 7: Creation Overhead

Description: Workflow instantiation cost only

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 17.9μs 45.6μs 4.25μs
.NET 8.0 22.1μs 44.4μs 6.05μs
.NET FX 4.8 6.90μs 13.9μs N/A†

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 4.51KB 8.59KB 424 B
.NET 8.0 4.49KB 8.58KB 424 B
.NET FX 4.8 0 B 0 B N/A†

Scenario 8: Complete Lifecycle

Description: Create, execute, and dispose workflow

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 108μs N/A 7464μs
.NET 8.0 105μs N/A 6580μs
.NET FX 4.8 33.6μs N/A N/A†

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 4.48KB N/A 1.00MB
.NET 8.0 4.46KB N/A 1.02MB
.NET FX 4.8 0 B N/A N/A†

Scenario 9: State Machine

Description: State machine with conditional transitions (5, 10, 25)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 25 transitions)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 59.3μs 17133μs 34627μs
.NET 8.0 59.7μs 13798μs 33184μs
.NET FX 4.8 55.9μs 15166μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Transitions WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
5 35.5μs 3608μs 13319μs 101.8x faster 375.7x faster
10 38.0μs 6163μs 20172μs 162.0x faster 530.2x faster
25 59.7μs 13798μs 33184μs 231.1x faster 555.8x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 24KB 1.03MB 5.85MB
.NET 8.0 23.94KB 1.05MB 5.89MB
.NET FX 4.8 24KB 1.25MB N/A†

Memory Allocation - Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Transitions WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
5 6.09KB 255.20KB 2.04MB
10 9.13KB 457.20KB 3.04MB
25 23.94KB 1.05MB 5.89MB

Scenario 10: Long Running

Description: Long-running operations with delays (delay-bound scenario)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 5 ops, 5ms delay)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 72ms 72ms 86ms
.NET 8.0 72ms 71ms 85ms
.NET FX 4.8 77ms 77ms N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Ops/Delay WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
3 ops / 1ms 40ms 40ms 54ms 1.0x faster 1.3x faster
5 ops / 5ms 72ms 71ms 85ms 1.0x faster 1.2x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 5.78KB 255.54KB 2.19MB
.NET 8.0 5.77KB 260.61KB 2.21MB
.NET FX 4.8 0 B 328KB N/A†

Scenario 11: Parallel Execution

Description: Parallel operations within workflow (4, 8, 16 ops)

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 16 ops)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 50.2μs 2214μs 22285μs
.NET 8.0 51.7μs 1847μs 27308μs
.NET FX 4.8 30.6μs 1561μs N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Operations WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
4 45.2μs 1777μs 11791μs 39.3x faster 260.9x faster
8 46.9μs 1809μs 18320μs 38.6x faster 390.6x faster
16 51.7μs 1847μs 27308μs 35.7x faster 528.2x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 8.75KB 120.43KB 4.56MB
.NET 8.0 9.00KB 122.84KB 4.67MB
.NET FX 4.8 0 B 176KB N/A†

Scenario 12: Event-Driven

Description: Event-driven workflow execution with delays

Multi-Runtime Performance (Median, 1ms delay)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 8ms 8ms 21ms
.NET 8.0 8ms 9ms 21ms
.NET FX 4.8 13ms 13ms N/A†

Parameter Sweep (.NET 8.0)

Delay WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa WF vs WC WF vs Elsa
1ms 8ms 9ms 21ms 1.1x faster 2.8x faster
5ms 9ms 9ms 22ms 1.0x faster 2.5x faster

Memory Allocation (by Runtime)

Runtime WorkflowForge Workflow Core Elsa
.NET 10.0 4.23KB 35.73KB 1.06MB
.NET 8.0 4.21KB 36.21KB 1.03MB
.NET FX 4.8 0 B 72KB N/A†

Performance Advantage Summary

By Scenario Type (12 Scenarios)

# Scenario Speed Advantage Memory Advantage
1 Sequential (10 ops) 44-185x 13-171x
2 Data Passing (10 ops) 42-171x 10-184x
3 Conditional (10 ops) 42-152x 11-155x
4 Loop (50 items) 78-187x 14-115x
5 Concurrent (8 workers) 138-387x 13-123x
6 Error Handling 9-133x 4-144x
7 Creation Overhead 2-3x 0.1-2x
8 Complete Lifecycle 62-69x 229-235x
9 State Machine (25) 231-583x 43-251x
10 Long Running ~1x (delay-bound) 44-392x
11 Parallel (16 ops) 35-528x 13-533x
12 Event-Driven 1.0-2.8x 8-257x

Ranges include all three runtimes (.NET 10.0, .NET 8.0, .NET Framework 4.8). Elsa is excluded from .NET Framework 4.8 comparisons.

Overall Speed Range: 2-583x faster execution (compute-bound scenarios)
Overall Memory Range: 1-533x less memory allocation

Reading the summary table

  1. State machine carries the widest execution spread we recorded (231-583x in the sweep).
  2. Concurrent work stays in a high multiple band vs Elsa on the runtimes listed.
  3. Long running and event-driven rows are delay-heavy; the standout delta there is allocation.
  4. On .NET 10.0 and 8.0, WorkflowForge reported less allocated memory in every row we logged (Elsa omitted on .NET Framework 4.8).

Architectural Differences

WorkflowForge Design

  1. Lightweight Execution Model
    • No background threads
    • Synchronous sequential execution (default)
    • Explicit parallelism via ForEachWorkflowOperation
    • Minimal object allocations
  2. Dictionary-Based Data Flow
    • ConcurrentDictionary<string, object?> for properties
    • Zero serialization overhead
    • Thread-safe property access
  3. Dependency-Free Core
    • No reflection-heavy frameworks
    • No serialization frameworks
    • Pure .NET Standard 2.0
  4. Middleware Pipeline
    • Russian Doll pattern
    • Minimal delegate allocations
    • No reflection per operation

Workflow Core Design

  1. Persistent Workflow Engine
    • Background worker threads
    • Designed for long-running workflows
    • Persistent state management
    • Work queue architecture
  2. Strong Typing
    • Reflection-based step resolution
    • JSON serialization for state
  3. Intended Use Case
    • Long-running business processes (hours/days)
    • Workflows that survive process restarts
    • Background processing

In short: Workflow Core targets durable, host-backed processes. WorkflowForge targets in-process, low-overhead runs first; add persistence packages when you need resume semantics.

Elsa Workflows Design

  1. Workflow Designer Focus
    • Visual workflow designer
    • HTTP workflow triggers
    • Large built-in activity catalog
  2. Serialization-Heavy
    • JSON serialization for all data
    • Heavy use of reflection
    • Large object graphs
  3. Intended Use Case
    • Visual workflow design
    • Human task workflows
    • Integration workflows

In short: Elsa emphasizes designer-first authoring, HTTP triggers, and a large built-in activity set. WorkflowForge keeps everything in C# with a smaller default surface. Neither layout is universally better; they optimize for different entry points.

Benchmark Methodology

Test Configuration

  • BenchmarkDotNet: v0.15.8
  • Runtimes: .NET 10.0.3, .NET 8.0.24, .NET Framework 4.8.1
  • Iterations: 10 per benchmark job
  • Warmup: 5 iterations
  • Invocation: 1 per iteration
  • Unroll Factor: 1

Hardware

  • OS: Windows 11 (25H2)
  • CPU: Intel 11th Gen i7-1185G7
  • SDK: .NET SDK 10.0.103
  • Memory: Sufficient for all benchmarks

Scenario Implementations

All scenarios implement identical logic across all frameworks:

  • Same operation count
  • Same data structures
  • Same conditional logic
  • Same collection sizes
  • Same concurrency levels

Fairness Verification:

  • Workflow Core implementations use TaskCompletionSource for precise completion detection
  • Elsa implementations use proper workflow completion await
  • WorkflowForge implementations use standard ForgeAsync()

Reproduction

Full benchmark source code available in repository:

  • src/benchmarks/WorkflowForge.Benchmarks.Comparative/
  • All scenarios in Scenarios/ folder
  • Run via dotnet run -c Release -f net48 -f net8.0 -f net10.0

Statistical Significance

All results meet statistical significance criteria:

  • Standard deviation < 20% of mean (most scenarios)
  • P95 values show consistency
  • Median values used for comparison (more stable than mean)
  • 10 iterations provide statistical confidence

Outliers: Some scenarios show high standard deviation due to GC pauses or system activity. Median values are used to minimize impact.

Summary

Across these twelve scenarios, the harness logged 2–583x faster execution and 1–533x lower allocation for WorkflowForge vs Workflow Core and Elsa on .NET 10.0, 8.0, and .NET Framework 4.8. The deltas line up with a few concrete differences:

  1. Fewer moving parts in the default path: no host-owned worker pool, no baked-in durable store, no JSON round-trip on every hop.
  2. ConcurrentDictionary state instead of large per-step object graphs in this test code.
  3. Straight-line middleware: nested delegates instead of reflection-heavy resolution on each call.
  4. Different goals: WorkflowForge chases in-process throughput first; the other stacks bet on hosting models, designers, or long-running durability you may still want elsewhere.

On this hardware and these scripts, WorkflowForge had the lowest median times and allocations for programmatic, in-memory orchestration. Your workload and hosting still matter more than any ratio in a table.

References

  • WorkflowForge: https://github.com/animatlabs/workflow-forge
  • Workflow Core: https://github.com/danielgerlag/workflow-core
  • Elsa Workflows: https://github.com/elsa-workflows/elsa-core

† Elsa does not support .NET Framework 4.8; results are excluded for that runtime.
‡ BenchmarkDotNet does not report memory allocation metrics for .NET Framework 4.8 in some benchmark configurations.