Alternatives to Blue Ocean logo

Alternatives to Blue Ocean

Red, Jenkins, Jenkins X, Travis CI, and CircleCI are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Blue Ocean.
86
150
+ 1
7

What is Blue Ocean and what are its top alternatives?

Designed from the ground up for Jenkins Pipeline and compatible with Freestyle jobs, Blue Ocean reduces clutter and increases clarity for every member of your team.
Blue Ocean is a tool in the Continuous Integration category of a tech stack.
Blue Ocean is an open source tool with 2.8K GitHub stars and 528 GitHub forks. Here’s a link to Blue Ocean's open source repository on GitHub

Top Alternatives to Blue Ocean

  • Red

    Red

    It is both an imperative and functional programming language. Its syntax and general usage overlaps that of the interpreted Rebol language. ...

  • Jenkins

    Jenkins

    In a nutshell Jenkins CI is the leading open-source continuous integration server. Built with Java, it provides over 300 plugins to support building and testing virtually any project. ...

  • Jenkins X

    Jenkins X

    Jenkins X is a CI/CD solution for modern cloud applications on Kubernetes

  • Travis CI

    Travis CI

    Free for open source projects, our CI environment provides multiple runtimes (e.g. Node.js or PHP versions), data stores and so on. Because of this, hosting your project on travis-ci.com means you can effortlessly test your library or applications against multiple runtimes and data stores without even having all of them installed locally. ...

  • CircleCI

    CircleCI

    Continuous integration and delivery platform helps software teams rapidly release code with confidence by automating the build, test, and deploy process. Offers a modern software development platform that lets teams ramp. ...

  • GitLab CI

    GitLab CI

    GitLab offers a continuous integration service. If you add a .gitlab-ci.yml file to the root directory of your repository, and configure your GitLab project to use a Runner, then each merge request or push triggers your CI pipeline. ...

  • GitHub Actions

    GitHub Actions

    It makes it easy to automate all your software workflows, now with world-class CI/CD. Build, test, and deploy your code right from GitHub. Make code reviews, branch management, and issue triaging work the way you want. ...

  • Codeship

    Codeship

    Codeship runs your automated tests and configured deployment when you push to your repository. It takes care of managing and scaling the infrastructure so that you are able to test and release more frequently and get faster feedback for building the product your users need. ...

Blue Ocean alternatives & related posts

Red logo

Red

35
39
8
Full-Stack programming language inspired by REBOL
35
39
+ 1
8
PROS OF RED
  • 6
    I use Red because of his human oriented design
  • 2
    I use Red because I'm so used to Rebol ultra-efficiency
CONS OF RED
    Be the first to leave a con

    related Red posts

    Jenkins logo

    Jenkins

    43.3K
    35.9K
    2.2K
    An extendable open source continuous integration server
    43.3K
    35.9K
    + 1
    2.2K
    PROS OF JENKINS
    • 521
      Hosted internally
    • 465
      Free open source
    • 314
      Great to build, deploy or launch anything async
    • 243
      Tons of integrations
    • 210
      Rich set of plugins with good documentation
    • 109
      Has support for build pipelines
    • 72
      Open source and tons of integrations
    • 63
      Easy setup
    • 61
      It is open-source
    • 54
      Workflow plugin
    • 11
      Configuration as code
    • 10
      Very powerful tool
    • 9
      Many Plugins
    • 8
      Continuous Integration
    • 8
      Great flexibility
    • 8
      Git and Maven integration is better
    • 6
      Github integration
    • 6
      100% free and open source
    • 6
      Slack Integration (plugin)
    • 5
      Easy customisation
    • 5
      Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)
    • 4
      Docker support
    • 3
      Excellent docker integration
    • 3
      Platform idnependency
    • 3
      Fast builds
    • 3
      Pipeline API
    • 2
      Customizable
    • 2
      Can be run as a Docker container
    • 2
      It`w worked
    • 2
      JOBDSL
    • 2
      Hosted Externally
    • 2
      It's Everywhere
    • 2
      AWS Integration
    • 1
      NodeJS Support
    • 1
      PHP Support
    • 1
      Ruby/Rails Support
    • 1
      Universal controller
    • 1
      Easily extendable with seamless integration
    • 1
      Build PR Branch Only
    CONS OF JENKINS
    • 12
      Workarounds needed for basic requirements
    • 8
      Groovy with cumbersome syntax
    • 6
      Limited abilities with declarative pipelines
    • 6
      Plugins compatibility issues
    • 5
      Lack of support
    • 4
      No YAML syntax
    • 2
      Too tied to plugins versions

    related Jenkins posts

    Tymoteusz Paul
    Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 4.7M views

    Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

    It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

    I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

    We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

    If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

    The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

    Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

    See more
    Thierry Schellenbach

    Releasing new versions of our services is done by Travis CI. Travis first runs our test suite. Once it passes, it publishes a new release binary to GitHub.

    Common tasks such as installing dependencies for the Go project, or building a binary are automated using plain old Makefiles. (We know, crazy old school, right?) Our binaries are compressed using UPX.

    Travis has come a long way over the past years. I used to prefer Jenkins in some cases since it was easier to debug broken builds. With the addition of the aptly named “debug build” button, Travis is now the clear winner. It’s easy to use and free for open source, with no need to maintain anything.

    #ContinuousIntegration #CodeCollaborationVersionControl

    See more
    Jenkins X logo

    Jenkins X

    139
    333
    16
    A CI/CD solution for cloud applications on Kubernetes
    139
    333
    + 1
    16
    PROS OF JENKINS X
    • 7
      Kubernetes integration
    • 5
      Scripted Pipelines
    • 4
      GitOps
    CONS OF JENKINS X
    • 1
      Complexity

    related Jenkins X posts

    Sandeep Sarpe
    Shared insights
    on
    Jenkins XJenkins XJenkinsJenkins

    My organization is using Jenkins now and we wanted to switch to Jenkins X

    See more
    Travis CI logo

    Travis CI

    9.7K
    5.5K
    1.8K
    A hosted continuous integration service for open source and private projects
    9.7K
    5.5K
    + 1
    1.8K
    PROS OF TRAVIS CI
    • 506
      Github integration
    • 388
      Free for open source
    • 272
      Easy to get started
    • 191
      Nice interface
    • 163
      Automatic deployment
    • 72
      Tutorials for each programming language
    • 40
      Friendly folks
    • 29
      Support for multiple ruby versions
    • 28
      Osx support
    • 24
      Easy handling of secret keys
    • 6
      Fast builds
    • 4
      Support for students
    • 3
      The best tool for Open Source CI
    • 3
      Hosted
    • 3
      Build Matrices
    • 2
      Integrates with everything
    • 2
      Github Pull Request build
    • 2
      Straightforward Github/Coveralls integration
    • 2
      Easy of Usage
    • 1
      Caching resolved artifacts
    • 1
      Docker support
    • 1
      Great Documentation
    • 1
      Free for students
    • 1
      Build matrix
    • 1
      No-brainer for CI
    • 1
      Debug build workflow
    • 1
      Ubuntu trusty is not supported
    • 1
      Configuration saved with project repository
    • 1
      Multi-threaded run
    • 1
      Hipchat Integration
    • 0
      One
    • 0
      Perfect
    CONS OF TRAVIS CI
    • 8
      Can't be hosted insternally
    • 3
      Feature lacking
    • 3
      Unstable
    • 2
      Incomplete documentation for all platforms

    related Travis CI posts

    Thierry Schellenbach

    Releasing new versions of our services is done by Travis CI. Travis first runs our test suite. Once it passes, it publishes a new release binary to GitHub.

    Common tasks such as installing dependencies for the Go project, or building a binary are automated using plain old Makefiles. (We know, crazy old school, right?) Our binaries are compressed using UPX.

    Travis has come a long way over the past years. I used to prefer Jenkins in some cases since it was easier to debug broken builds. With the addition of the aptly named “debug build” button, Travis is now the clear winner. It’s easy to use and free for open source, with no need to maintain anything.

    #ContinuousIntegration #CodeCollaborationVersionControl

    See more
    Tim Abbott
    Shared insights
    on
    Travis CITravis CICircleCICircleCI
    at

    We actually started out on Travis CI, but we've migrated our main builds to CircleCI, and it's been a huge improvement.

    The reason it's been a huge improvement is that Travis CI has a fundamentally bad design for their images, where they start with a standard base Linux image containing tons of packages (several versions of postgres, every programming language environment, etc). This is potentially nice for the "get builds for a small project running quickly" use case, but it's a total disaster for a larger project that needs a decent number of dependencies and cares about the performance and reliability of their build.

    This issue is exacerbated by their networking infrastructure being unreliable; we usually saw over 1% of builds failing due to transient networking errors in Travis CI, even after we added retries to the most frequently failing operations like apt update or pip install. And they never install Ubuntu's point release updates to their images. So doing an apt update, apt install, or especially apt upgrade would take forever. We ended up writing code to actually uninstall many of their base packages and pin the versions of hundreds of others to get a semi-fast, semi-reliable build. It was infuriating.

    The CircleCI v2.0 system has the right design for a CI system: we can customize the base image to start with any expensive-to-install packages we need for our build, and we can update that image if and when we want to. The end result is that when migrating, we were able to delete all the hacky optimizations mentioned above, while still ending up with a 50% faster build latency. And we've also had 5-10x fewer issues with networking-related flakes, which means one doesn't have to constantly check whether a build failure is actually due to an issue with the code under test or "just another networking flake".

    See more
    CircleCI logo

    CircleCI

    7.8K
    5.4K
    961
    Automate your development process quickly, safely, and at scale
    7.8K
    5.4K
    + 1
    961
    PROS OF CIRCLECI
    • 224
      Github integration
    • 176
      Easy setup
    • 152
      Fast builds
    • 94
      Competitively priced
    • 74
      Slack integration
    • 54
      Docker support
    • 44
      Awesome UI
    • 33
      Great customer support
    • 18
      Ios support
    • 14
      Hipchat integration
    • 12
      SSH debug access
    • 11
      Free for Open Source
    • 5
      Mobile support
    • 5
      Bitbucket integration
    • 4
      Nodejs support
    • 4
      AWS CodeDeploy integration
    • 3
      YAML configuration
    • 3
      Free for Github private repo
    • 3
      Great support
    • 2
      Clojure
    • 2
      Simple, clean UI
    • 2
      Clojurescript
    • 2
      OSX support
    • 2
      Continuous Deployment
    • 1
      Android support
    • 1
      Autoscaling
    • 1
      Fair pricing
    • 1
      All inclusive testing
    • 1
      Helpful documentation
    • 1
      Japanese in rspec comment appears OK
    • 1
      Favorite
    • 1
      Build PR Branch Only
    • 1
      Really easy to use
    • 1
      Unstable
    • 1
      So circular
    • 1
      Easy setup, easy to understand, fast and reliable
    • 1
      Parallel builds for slow test suites
    • 1
      Easy setup. 2.0 is fast!
    • 1
      Parallelism
    • 1
      Extremely configurable
    • 1
      Easy to deploy to private servers
    • 1
      Works
    CONS OF CIRCLECI
    • 12
      Unstable
    • 6
      Scammy pricing structure
    • 0
      Aggressive Github permissions

    related CircleCI posts

    Tymoteusz Paul
    Devops guy at X20X Development LTD · | 23 upvotes · 4.7M views

    Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

    It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

    I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

    We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

    If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

    The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

    Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.

    See more
    Tim Abbott
    Shared insights
    on
    Travis CITravis CICircleCICircleCI
    at

    We actually started out on Travis CI, but we've migrated our main builds to CircleCI, and it's been a huge improvement.

    The reason it's been a huge improvement is that Travis CI has a fundamentally bad design for their images, where they start with a standard base Linux image containing tons of packages (several versions of postgres, every programming language environment, etc). This is potentially nice for the "get builds for a small project running quickly" use case, but it's a total disaster for a larger project that needs a decent number of dependencies and cares about the performance and reliability of their build.

    This issue is exacerbated by their networking infrastructure being unreliable; we usually saw over 1% of builds failing due to transient networking errors in Travis CI, even after we added retries to the most frequently failing operations like apt update or pip install. And they never install Ubuntu's point release updates to their images. So doing an apt update, apt install, or especially apt upgrade would take forever. We ended up writing code to actually uninstall many of their base packages and pin the versions of hundreds of others to get a semi-fast, semi-reliable build. It was infuriating.

    The CircleCI v2.0 system has the right design for a CI system: we can customize the base image to start with any expensive-to-install packages we need for our build, and we can update that image if and when we want to. The end result is that when migrating, we were able to delete all the hacky optimizations mentioned above, while still ending up with a 50% faster build latency. And we've also had 5-10x fewer issues with networking-related flakes, which means one doesn't have to constantly check whether a build failure is actually due to an issue with the code under test or "just another networking flake".

    See more
    GitLab CI logo

    GitLab CI

    1.9K
    1.3K
    71
    GitLab integrated CI to test, build and deploy your code
    1.9K
    1.3K
    + 1
    71
    PROS OF GITLAB CI
    • 22
      Robust CI with awesome Docker support
    • 12
      Simple configuration
    • 8
      All in one solution
    • 6
      Source Control and CI in one place
    • 5
      Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner
    • 5
      Integrated with VCS on commit
    • 4
      Free and open source
    • 2
      Hosted internally
    • 1
      Pipeline could be started manually
    • 1
      Built-in support of Review Apps
    • 1
      Enable or disable pipeline by using env variables
    • 1
      Gitlab templates could be shared across logical group
    • 1
      Easy to setup the dedicated runner to particular job
    • 1
      Built-in Docker Registry
    • 1
      Built-in support of Kubernetes
    CONS OF GITLAB CI
    • 1
      Works best with GitLab repositories

    related GitLab CI posts

    Joshua Dean Küpper
    CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 18 upvotes · 291.1K views

    We use GitLab CI because of the great native integration as a part of the GitLab framework and the linting-capabilities it offers. The visualization of complex pipelines and the embedding within the project overview made Gitlab CI even more convenient. We use it for all projects, all deployments and as a part of GitLab Pages.

    While we initially used the Shell-executor, we quickly switched to the Docker-executor and use it exclusively now.

    We formerly used Jenkins but preferred to handle everything within GitLab . Aside from the unification of our infrastructure another motivation was the "configuration-in-file"-approach, that Gitlab CI offered, while Jenkins support of this concept was very limited and users had to resort to using the webinterface. Since the file is included within the repository, it is also version controlled, which was a huge plus for us.

    See more
    Sebastian Dellwig
    Tech Lead at Porsche Digital GmbH · | 6 upvotes · 138.1K views
    Shared insights
    on
    GitLab CIGitLab CICircleCICircleCICodeshipCodeship

    We are using GitLab CI and were very happy with it. The integration of all tools like CI/CD, tickets, etc makes it very easy to stay on top of things. But be aware, Gitlab currently does not have iOS build support. So if you want to exchange that for CircleCI / Codeship to have to invest some effort. We are using a managed Mac OS device and installed the Gitlab runner there, to have iOS builds.

    See more
    GitHub Actions logo

    GitHub Actions

    1.1K
    418
    18
    Automate your workflow from idea to production
    1.1K
    418
    + 1
    18
    PROS OF GITHUB ACTIONS
    • 4
      Free
    • 3
      Integration with GitHub
    • 3
      Easy to duplicate a workflow
    • 2
      Read actions in Marketplace
    • 2
      Ready actions in Marketplace
    • 1
      Active Development Roadmap
    • 1
      Fast
    • 1
      Configs stored in .github
    • 1
      Docker Support
    CONS OF GITHUB ACTIONS
    • 5
      Lacking [skip ci]
    • 4
      Lacking allow failure
    • 2
      Lacking job specific badges
    • 1
      No ssh login to servers
    • 1
      No Deployment Projects
    • 1
      No manual launch

    related GitHub Actions posts

    Somnath Mahale
    Engineering Leader at Altimetrik Corp. · | 8 upvotes · 98.1K views

    I am in the process of evaluating CircleCI, Drone.io, and Github Actions to cover my #CI/ CD needs. I would appreciate your advice on comparative study w.r.t. attributes like language-Inclusive support, code-base integration, performance, cost, maintenance, support, ease of use, ability to deal with big projects, etc. based on actual industry experience.

    Thanks in advance!

    See more
    Omkar Kulkarni
    DevOps Engineer at LTI · | 3 upvotes · 19.2K views
    Shared insights
    on
    GitLabGitLabGitHub ActionsGitHub Actions

    Hello Everyone, Can some please help me to understand the difference between GitHub Actions And GitLab I have been trying to understand them, but still did not get how exactly they are different.

    See more
    Codeship logo

    Codeship

    1K
    729
    1.5K
    A Continuous Integration Platform in the cloud
    1K
    729
    + 1
    1.5K
    PROS OF CODESHIP
    • 215
      Simple deployments
    • 179
      Easy setup
    • 159
      Github integration
    • 147
      Continuous deployment
    • 110
      Bitbucket integration
    • 97
      Easy ui
    • 84
      Slack integration
    • 66
      Fast builds
    • 61
      Great ui
    • 61
      Great customer support
    • 28
      SSH debug access
    • 27
      Free plan for 5 private repositories
    • 27
      Easy to get started
    • 23
      Competitively priced
    • 20
      Notifications
    • 20
      Hipchat, Campfire integrations
    • 16
      Awesome UI
    • 15
      Fast
    • 14
      Great documentation
    • 13
      Great experience
    • 12
      Free for open source
    • 10
      Great Tutorials
    • 4
      GitLab integration
    • 4
      Free
    • 4
      Easy to use, above all and its free for basic use
    • 3
      Easy for CI first timers
    • 3
      BitBucket Support
    • 3
      Very easy to get started
    • 3
      Build private Github repos on the free plan
    • 3
      Awesome
    • 2
      Super easy setup, works great with py.test/tox
    • 2
      Openshift integration
    • 2
      Great support, even on free tier
    • 2
      AppEngine integration
    • 2
      Easy debugging with ssh
    • 2
      Integrates with other free software
    • 2
      Superfast team work integration
    • 2
      Grepping Codeship = 1 day. Grepping Bamboo = 1 month
    • 2
      Easy to set up, very nice GitHub integration
    • 2
      Up and running in few minutes, and above all UI
    CONS OF CODESHIP
    • 3
      Ui could use some polishing
    • 0
      Antiquated ui
    • 0
      Difficult to answer build questions

    related Codeship posts

    Sebastian Dellwig
    Tech Lead at Porsche Digital GmbH · | 6 upvotes · 138.1K views
    Shared insights
    on
    GitLab CIGitLab CICircleCICircleCICodeshipCodeship

    We are using GitLab CI and were very happy with it. The integration of all tools like CI/CD, tickets, etc makes it very easy to stay on top of things. But be aware, Gitlab currently does not have iOS build support. So if you want to exchange that for CircleCI / Codeship to have to invest some effort. We are using a managed Mac OS device and installed the Gitlab runner there, to have iOS builds.

    See more