Argo vs Skaffold: What are the differences?

Introduction

In the world of Kubernetes deployment tools, Argo and Skaffold are two popular choices. While both tools have the objective of simplifying the deployment process, there are key differences between the two. In this article, we will explore six significant differences between Argo and Skaffold.

1. Architecture: The fundamental difference between Argo and Skaffold lies in their architecture. Argo is built as a workflow engine, while Skaffold is designed as a local development tool. Argo focuses on defining and executing complex workflows, making it ideal for CI/CD pipelines and automation tasks. On the other hand, Skaffold enables developers to rapidly iterate their applications locally with ease.

2. Workflow vs. Configuration: Argo emphasizes defining and managing workflows using YAML or JSON configuration files. These workflows consist of various steps that can be executed sequentially, in parallel, or conditionally. In contrast, Skaffold's configuration is centered around defining how to build, push, and deploy applications to a Kubernetes cluster. It provides an intuitive way to automate these processes and enables developers to focus on writing code.

3. Support for Helm: Helm, a popular package manager for Kubernetes, can be utilized with both Argo and Skaffold. However, the level of support differs. Argo has first-class integration with Helm charts, allowing users to define Helm-based workflow steps easily. While Skaffold does not directly integrate with Helm, it provides extensibility through custom scripts and allows developers to invoke Helm commands within their build and deployment pipeline.

4. Developer Experience: Skaffold places a strong emphasis on developer experience by providing fast iterative development cycles. It automatically synchronizes local code changes into the deployment environment, allowing developers to see their changes in real-time. Argo, on the other hand, is more focused on automation and orchestration, making it less developer-centric.

5. Integration with GitOps: Argo has native support for GitOps workflows, which promote declarative and version-controlled deployment practices. It seamlessly integrates with Git repositories and continuously monitors changes to automatically trigger the desired workflows. Skaffold, while not specifically designed for GitOps, can be incorporated into a GitOps workflow by integrating with other tools such as Flux or Argo CD.

6. Community and Maturity: Both Argo and Skaffold have active and growing communities, but Argo benefits from being a part of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) ecosystem. It has a larger user base and a more significant number of contributors, leading to a more mature tool with extensive documentation, support, and regular updates. Skaffold, although still widely used, may be considered relatively newer in comparison.

In Summary, Argo and Skaffold differ in terms of their architecture, focus (workflow vs. configuration), support for Helm, developer experience, integration with GitOps, and community maturity. These tools cater to different needs and use cases, with Argo excelling in automation and orchestration, while Skaffold enhances the local development experience.