Is Workflow redundant now that Content Moderation+Workflows is in core?

AFAIK, there are 2 key differences between this module and the core Workflows module:

1- Workflow access: Provides a way to control access to content according to their workflow state
2- Fieldable: This module allows a workflow state to be attached as a field to an entity. Though as mentioned by SocialNicheGuru, "Now there is the workflows_field module for core workflows (http://drupal.org/project/workflows_field)" I haven't tried that module.

+1 for being enable to add workflow to different entity types, especially if they are custom entity types.

There should really be an explanation of this on the module's project page. On first reading it seems like this must be a legacy module from before Workflows and Content Moderation were part of core.
Even once it becomes apparent this isn't the case, it's not clear what the differences are.

Agreed this should be explained on the project page.

As for merging the functionalities with core Workflows, this would be ideal but AFAICT the 2 modules are architecturally very different, so I am not sure if this is feasible... Personally, I prefer the way this one (Workflow) works, having a more generalized workflow per field & entity approach. It allows for greater flexibility and expandability.

What is the situation now? I am on D10.3 and using the core Workflows module but I am having difficulties with getting nod visibilities to correspond to workflow states. Is this Workflow module still maintained and will it work in D11?

@JohnWT, indeed, the contrib Workflow module is still very much alive.
ATM, as a maintainer, I have no interest in making a comparison between core Workflows module and this contrib Workflow module.

Including info from 🌱 Comparing Workflow, Workflows, Workbench, Maestro, State Machine, Content Moderations, Workflows fields modules Active and marking that as 'duplicate'.

Added https://www.drupal.org/project/transaction_workflow →

I use Workflow module for the same reasons of those posted on #13.
For my needs I used it in combination with Rules module to make email alerts when workflow states values are changing from one value to an other specific. In combination with Rules, an other use is to automaticaly set some node fields values regarding to the states values.
I love the easy way to build a complex workflow with an easy way to manage complex rights regarding the workflow states.
I love the dedicated workflow interface that show all of changing states historics of a node with timestamp and all user commentaries.
It is a generic module that can responds to a lot a usage so it's important to keep it with the same spirit !

Just weighing in here- I've used this project most recently for a client project where not only did their requirements call for ALL the items mentioned in comment #13, but also a more complex set of workflow states and transitions than could easily be represented using the core Workflows and Content Moderation modules. We needed a different workflow for each of 4 different content types, each with different states/transitions, access controls, custom labels on the transition buttons, etc.

Beyond that, our requirements called for a fair bit of integration with other modules. We knew we need a Rules-like component, for example, to do things like hide certain parts of the content form depending on workflow state, or trigger an email on workflow state transition that could include tokens referencing email addresses in field values on the node itself. After a fair bit of research, we concluded that Workflow and ECA were best suited for our needs, and even spawned off a handful of related modules to fill in some gaps.

My sense is that the core module is great if you want a straightforward publishing workflow that applies to all or most of your (small number of) content types. That being said, this evaluation was now 2 years ago, so it's very possible things have changed. Even so, I think Workflow is a very capable and valuable addition to the ecosystem, and would be glad to see it remain (although I agree it would be lovely to have the distinctions more clearly defined!)