Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Bitbucket Pipelines vs Travis CI: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this article, we will compare Bitbucket Pipelines and Travis CI. Both are popular Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) platforms used for automating software builds, testing, and deployment processes. Below are the key differences between the two platforms:
Pricing Model: Bitbucket Pipelines is tightly integrated with Atlassian's Bitbucket repository hosting service and is included as part of the Bitbucket pricing plans. Travis CI, on the other hand, offers both free and paid plans, making it more accessible for smaller projects and open-source software.
Configuration File: Bitbucket Pipelines uses a YAML-based configuration file called "bitbucket-pipelines.yml" which is committed to the repository along with the source code. This allows for versioning the build configuration and tracking changes over time. Travis CI uses a similar YAML-based configuration file called ".travis.yml" which is also stored in the repository. However, Bitbucket Pipelines provides a more intuitive and simplified syntax for defining build steps.
Integration: Bitbucket Pipelines is tightly integrated with other Atlassian products such as Jira, allowing you to easily link builds with relevant issues, create branch-specific pipelines, and manage permissions using Bitbucket's granular access controls. Travis CI, on the other hand, integrates well with popular source code hosting platforms like GitHub and Bitbucket, providing seamless integration with pull requests and commit statuses.
Supported Environments: Bitbucket Pipelines provides built-in support for running builds on Linux, macOS, and Windows environments, allowing you to test your code across multiple platforms. Travis CI, on the other hand, primarily focuses on Linux environments and provides limited support for macOS and Windows.
Parallelism and Concurrency: Bitbucket Pipelines allows you to run multiple parallel steps and jobs within a single build, enabling faster build times and efficient resource utilization. Travis CI has limitations on parallelism and concurrency, allowing only one job to run at a time in the free plan and supporting limited parallelism in the paid plans.
Community and Plugins: Travis CI has a large and vibrant community, providing extensive documentation, support forums, and a wide range of plugins and integrations for additional functionality. Bitbucket Pipelines, being part of the Atlassian ecosystem, also has a strong community but may have a more limited number of plugins and integrations compared to Travis CI.
In summary, the key differences between Bitbucket Pipelines and Travis CI lie in their pricing models, configuration file syntax and simplicity, integration capabilities, supported environments, parallelism and concurrency options, and the size and variety of their respective communities and plugin ecosystems.
From a StackShare Community member: "Currently we use Travis CI and have optimized it as much as we can so our builds are fairly quick. Our boss is all about redundancy so we are looking for another solution to fall back on in case Travis goes down and/or jacks prices way up (they were recently acquired). Could someone recommend which CI we should go with and if they have time, an explanation of how they're different?"
We use CircleCI because of the better value it provides in its plans. I'm sure we could have used Travis just as easily but we found CircleCI's pricing to be more reasonable. In the two years since we signed up, the service has improved. CircleCI is always innovating and iterating on their platform. We have been very satisfied.
As the maintainer of the Karate DSL open-source project - I found Travis CI very easy to integrate into the GitHub workflow and it has been steady sailing for more than 2 years now ! It works well for Java / Apache Maven projects and we were able to configure it to use the latest Oracle JDK as per our needs. Thanks to the Travis CI team for this service to the open-source community !
I use Google Cloud Build because it's my first foray into the CICD world(loving it so far), and I wanted to work with something GCP native to avoid giving permissions to other SaaS tools like CircleCI and Travis CI.
I really like it because it's free for the first 120 minutes, and it's one of the few CICD tools that enterprises are open to using since it's contained within GCP.
One of the unique things is that it has the Kaniko cache, which speeds up builds by creating intermediate layers within the docker image vs. pushing the full thing from the start. Helpful when you're installing just a few additional dependencies.
Feel free to checkout an example: Cloudbuild Example
I use Travis CI because of various reasons - 1. Cloud based system so no dedicated server required, and you do not need to administrate it. 2. Easy YAML configuration. 3. Supports Major Programming Languages. 4. Support of build matrix 6. Supports AWS, Azure, Docker, Heroku, Google Cloud, Github Pages, PyPi and lot more. 7. Slack Notifications.
You are probably looking at another hosted solution: Jenkins is a good tool but it way too work intensive to be used as just a backup solution.
I have good experience with Circle-CI, Codeship, Drone.io and Travis (as well as problematic experiences with all of them), but my go-to tool is Gitlab CI: simple, powerful and if you have problems with their limitations or pricing, you can always install runners somewhere and use Gitlab just for scheduling and management. Even if you don't host your git repository at Gitlab, you can have Gitlab pull changes automatically from wherever you repo lives.
If you are considering Jenkins I would recommend at least checking out Buildkite. The agents are self-hosted (like Jenkins) but the interface is hosted for you. It meshes up some of the things I like about hosted services (pipeline definitions in YAML, managed interface and authentication) with things I like about Jenkins (local customizable agent images, secrets only on own instances, custom agent level scripts, sizing instances to your needs).
My website is brand new and one of the few requirements of testings I had to implement was code coverage. Never though it was so hard to implement using a #docker container.
Given my lack of experience, every attempt I tried on making a simple code coverage test using the 4 combinations of #TravisCI, #CircleCi with #Coveralls, #Codecov I failed. The main problem was I was generating the .coverage file within the docker container and couldn't access it with #TravisCi or #CircleCi, every attempt to solve this problem seems to be very hacky and this was not the kind of complexity I want to introduce to my newborn website.
This problem was solved using a specific action for #GitHubActions, it was a 3 line solution I had to put in my github workflow file and I was able to access the .coverage file from my docker container and get the coverage report with #Codecov.
We were long time users of TravisCI, but switched to CircleCI because of the better user interface and pricing. Version 2.0 has had a couple of trips and hiccups; but overall we've been very happy with the continuous integration it provides. Continuous Integration is a must-have for building software, and CircleCI continues to surprise as they roll out ideas and features. It's leading the industry in terms of innovation and new ideas, and it's exciting to see what new things they keep rolling out.
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.
Pros of Bitbucket Pipelines
Pros of Travis CI
- Github integration506
- Free for open source388
- Easy to get started271
- Nice interface191
- Automatic deployment162
- Tutorials for each programming language72
- Friendly folks40
- Support for multiple ruby versions29
- Osx support28
- Easy handling of secret keys24
- Fast builds6
- Support for students4
- The best tool for Open Source CI3
- Hosted3
- Build Matrices3
- Github Pull Request build2
- Straightforward Github/Coveralls integration2
- Easy of Usage2
- Integrates with everything2
- Caching resolved artifacts1
- Docker support1
- Great Documentation1
- Build matrix1
- No-brainer for CI1
- Debug build workflow1
- Ubuntu trusty is not supported1
- Free for students1
- Configuration saved with project repository1
- Multi-threaded run1
- Hipchat Integration1
- Perfect0
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Bitbucket Pipelines
Cons of Travis CI
- Can't be hosted insternally8
- Feature lacking3
- Unstable3
- Incomplete documentation for all platforms2
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Bitbucket Pipelines?
What is Travis CI?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Bitbucket Pipelines?
What companies use Travis CI?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Bitbucket Pipelines?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+12
+42
+31
+15
+33+26
+26
+39