Apache Ant vs Jenkins: What are the differences?
Developers describe Apache Ant as "Java based build tool". Ant is a Java-based build tool. In theory, it is kind of like Make, without Make's wrinkles and with the full portability of pure Java code. On the other hand, Jenkins is detailed as "An extendable open source continuous integration server". 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.
Apache Ant can be classified as a tool in the "Java Build Tools" category, while Jenkins is grouped under "Continuous Integration".
Some of the features offered by Apache Ant are:
- The most complete Java build and deployment tool available.
- Platform neutral and can handle platform specific properties such as file separators
- Can be used to perform platform specific tasks such as modifying the modified time of a file using 'touch' command
On the other hand, Jenkins provides the following key features:
- Easy installation
- Easy configuration
- Change set support
"Flexible" is the primary reason why developers consider Apache Ant over the competitors, whereas "Hosted internally" was stated as the key factor in picking Jenkins.
Apache Ant and Jenkins are both open source tools. Jenkins with 13.2K GitHub stars and 5.43K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Apache Ant with 244 GitHub stars and 255 GitHub forks.
Instacart, Lyft, and Twitch are some of the popular companies that use Jenkins, whereas Apache Ant is used by Webedia, LinkedIn, and Starter Inc.. Jenkins has a broader approval, being mentioned in 1753 company stacks & 1479 developers stacks; compared to Apache Ant, which is listed in 24 company stacks and 12 developer stacks.
Within our deployment pipeline, we have a need to deploy to multiple customer environments, and manage secrets specifically in a way that integrates well with AWS, Kubernetes Secrets, Terraform and our pipelines ourselves.
Jenkins offered us the ability to choose one of a number of credentials/secrets management approaches, and models secrets as a more dynamic concept that GitHub Actions provided.
Additionally, we are operating Jenkins within our development Kubernetes cluster as a kind of system-wide orchestrator, allowing us to use Kubernetes pods as build agents, avoiding the ongoing direct costs associated with GitHub Actions minutes / per-user pricing. Obviously as a consequence we take on the indirect costs of maintain Jenkins itself, patching it, upgrading etc. However our experience with managing Jenkins via Kubernetes and declarative Jenkins configuration has led us to believe that this cost is small, particularly as the majority of actual building and testing is handled inside docker containers and Kubernetes, alleviating the need for less supported plugins that may make Jenkins administration more difficult.
Jenkins is a pretty flexible, complete tool. Especially I love the possibility to configure jobs as a code with Jenkins pipelines.
CircleCI is well suited for small projects where the main task is to run continuous integration as quickly as possible. Travis CI is recommended primarily for open-source projects that need to be tested in different environments.
And for something a bit larger I prefer to use Jenkins because it is possible to make serious system configuration thereby different plugins. In Jenkins, I can change almost anything. But if you want to start the CI chain as soon as possible, Jenkins may not be the right choice.
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Apache Ant?
What is Jenkins?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions