Get Advice Icon

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Buddy

300
348
+ 1
606
CircleCI

12.9K
7.1K
+ 1
974
Add tool

Buddy vs CircleCI: What are the differences?

Introduction

Buddy and CircleCI are both popular continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD) platforms that help automate the building, testing, and deployment of software projects. While they share common goals, there are significant differences between the two platforms.

  1. Pricing Model: Buddy follows a usage-based pricing model, where users are charged based on the number of actions performed and the resources consumed. On the other hand, CircleCI offers various pricing tiers based on the number of concurrent builds and parallelism, making it more suitable for projects with different scalability needs.

  2. User Interface: Buddy boasts a user-friendly and intuitive interface, providing a visual representation of the CI/CD pipeline. With its drag-and-drop editor and visual feedback, it simplifies the configuration and management of pipelines for developers. CircleCI, while offering a clean and straightforward interface, does not emphasize visual elements as much as Buddy.

  3. Configuration as Code: Buddy allows users to define and manage their CI/CD pipelines using a YAML-based configuration file. This approach enables version control and facilitates collaboration among team members. While CircleCI also supports YAML-based configuration, it primarily relies on a web-based configuration format, which may be preferred by some developers who prefer a more graphical interface.

  4. Integration Ecosystem: CircleCI provides extensive integrations with various development tools and services, ranging from source code repositories (e.g., GitHub, Bitbucket) to deployment platforms (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud). Buddy, on the other hand, offers a slightly smaller but still comprehensive list of integrations, including popular services such as Slack, AWS, and Azure. The choice of platform may depend on the specific integrations required by the project.

  5. Deployment Strategies: Buddy excels in its support for multiple deployment strategies, including FTP/SFTP, SSH, and custom scripts. It also offers integrated deployment to cloud platforms like AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and others. CircleCI, while also supporting various deployment methods, may not provide the same level of convenience or integration options for specific platforms.

  6. Private Infrastructure: Buddy allows users to deploy the CI/CD platform on their own infrastructure, such as local servers or private cloud instances, giving more control over security and performance. CircleCI, however, operates primarily on a cloud-based infrastructure, making it simpler to set up and use, especially for teams or organizations lacking dedicated infrastructure resources.

In summary, Buddy offers a more visual and user-friendly interface, flexible pricing based on resource usage, extensive deployment options, and the ability to deploy on private infrastructure. CircleCI, on the other hand, emphasizes integrations with a wide range of development tools and services and provides an interface that suits those who prefer a more web-based configuration approach.

Advice on Buddy and CircleCI
Needs advice
on
CircleCICircleCIGitLab CIGitLab CI
and
Jenkins XJenkins X

We are a mid-size startup running Scala apps. Moving from Jenkins/EC2 to Spinnaker/EKS and looking for a tool to cover our CI/CD needs. Our code lives on GitHub, artifacts in nexus, images in ECR.

Drone is out, GitHub actions are being considered along with Circle CI and GitLab CI.

We primarily need:

  • Fast SBT builds (caching)
  • Low maintenance overhead (ideally serverless)
  • Everything as code
  • Ease of use
See more
Replies (3)
Glenn Gillen
Recommends
on
BuildkiteBuildkite

I think I've tried most of the CI tools out there at some point. It took me a while to get around to Buildkite because at first I didn't see much point given it seemed like you had to run the agent yourself. Eventually it dawned on me why this approach was more ingenious than I realised:

Running my app in a production (or production-like) environment was already a solved problem, because everything was already in some form of "everything as code". Having a test environment where the only difference was adding the Buildkite agent was a trivial addition.

It means that dev/test/prod parity is simple to achieve and maintain. It's also proven to be much easier to support than trying to deal with the problems that come with trying to force an app to fit into the nuances and constraints that are imposed by the containers/runtime of a CI service. When you completely control all of the environment the tests are running in you define those constraints too. It's been a great balance between a managed service and the flexibility of running it yourself.

And while none of my needs have hit the scale of Shopify (I saw one of their engineers speak about it at a conference once, I can't find the video now though 😞) it's good to know I can scale out my worker nodes to hundreds of thousands of workers to reduce the time it takes for my tests to run.

See more
Recommends
on
jFrogjFrog

I would recommend you to consider the JFrog Platform that includes JFrog Pipelines - it will allow you to manage the full artifact life cycle for your sbt, docker and other technologies, and automate all of your CI and CD using cloud native declarative yaml pipelines. Will integrate smoothly with all your other toolset.

See more
Estu Fardani
Recommends
on
GitLab CIGitLab CI

more configurable to setup ci/cd: * It can provide caching when build sbt, just add this section to yml file * Easy to use, many documentation

Weakness: * Need use gitlab as repository to bring more powerful configuration

See more
Needs advice
on
JenkinsJenkinsTravis CITravis CI
and
CircleCICircleCI

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?"

See more
Replies (6)
Dustin Falgout
Senior Developer at Elegant Themes · | 13 upvotes · 593.8K views

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.

See more
Peter Thomas
Distinguished Engineer at Intuit · | 9 upvotes · 909.5K views
Recommends
on
Travis CITravis CI
at

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 !

See more
Recommends
on
Google Cloud BuildGoogle Cloud Build

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

See more
Recommends
on
Travis CITravis CI

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.

See more
Oded Arbel
Recommends
on
GitLab CIGitLab CI

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.

See more
Recommends
on
BuildkiteBuildkite

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).

See more
Decisions about Buddy and CircleCI

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.

See more

Buddy is one of the most easy-to-use tools for CI I ever met. When I needed to set up the pipeline I was really impressed with how easy it is to create it with Buddy with only a few moments. It's literally like: 1. Add repo 2. Click - Click - Click 3. You're done and your app is on prod :D The top feature that I've found is a simple integration with different notification channels - not only Slack (which is the one by default), but Telegram and Discord. The support is also neat - guys respond pretty quickly on even a small issue.

See more

We picked up Buddy initially because it allowed us to structure and scale our usage as we grew. It also has some of the best integrations that we've seen (and that we used to script manually). We use it to deploy our cloud stack as well as package our on-premise software.

It's pretty versatile, and compared to the other tools pricing is much more sensible.

See more
Saras Arya
Chose
BuddyBuddy
over
CircleCICircleCI

So I was deploying a simple project and circle CI looked like a pain to set up, with me having to write YAML configs. Now don't get me wrong Circle CI is a great tool and used it on many projects but if you are looking for simplicity. Like I have to SSH into the server, pull from GitHub, do a yarn install, yarn build and restart the project and have ever wondered, is there a tool that would do it for you without you missing a single line. Look no further than Buddy. With features so simple to use, like setting up ENV Variables, Integrations with Slack, GA was a breeze to use. 12/10 on would recommend for your next side project and the best part it's free for the first 5 projects.

See more

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.

See more

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.

See more
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More
Pros of Buddy
Pros of CircleCI
  • 56
    Easy setup
  • 53
    Docker
  • 50
    Continuous Integration
  • 49
    Integrations
  • 46
    Beautiful dashboard
  • 45
    Git hosting
  • 43
    Free
  • 42
    Unlimited pipelines
  • 39
    Monitoring
  • 39
    Backup
  • 37
    Great UX
  • 32
    On-Premises
  • 31
    Awesome support
  • 6
    AWS Integrations
  • 5
    Great UI
  • 3
    Hosted internally (Enterprise)
  • 3
    Slack integration
  • 3
    Continuous deployment
  • 3
    Simple deployments
  • 3
    Bitbucket integration
  • 2
    Github integration
  • 2
    UI and YML configuration
  • 2
    Node.js support
  • 2
    Azure integration
  • 2
    Amazing + free
  • 1
    Support for build pipelines
  • 1
    Docker support
  • 1
    Gitlab integration
  • 1
    Android support
  • 1
    Pushover integration
  • 1
    DigitalOcean integration
  • 1
    UpCloud integration
  • 1
    Shopify integration
  • 0
    New Relic integration
  • 0
    Rollbar integration
  • 0
    Sentry integration
  • 0
    Loggly integration
  • 0
    Datadog integration
  • 0
    Bugsnag integration
  • 0
    Honeybadger integration
  • 0
    Telegram integration
  • 0
    HipChat integration
  • 0
    Discord integration
  • 0
    Pushbulet integration
  • 0
    AWS integration
  • 0
    Slack Integration
  • 0
    Google Cloud integration
  • 0
    Heroku integration
  • 0
    Rackspace integration
  • 0
    Kubernetes support
  • 226
    Github integration
  • 177
    Easy setup
  • 153
    Fast builds
  • 94
    Competitively priced
  • 74
    Slack integration
  • 55
    Docker support
  • 45
    Awesome UI
  • 33
    Great customer support
  • 18
    Ios support
  • 14
    Hipchat integration
  • 13
    SSH debug access
  • 11
    Free for Open Source
  • 6
    Mobile support
  • 5
    Nodejs support
  • 5
    Bitbucket integration
  • 5
    YAML configuration
  • 4
    AWS CodeDeploy integration
  • 3
    Free for Github private repo
  • 3
    Great support
  • 2
    Clojurescript
  • 2
    Continuous Deployment
  • 2
    Parallelism
  • 2
    Clojure
  • 2
    OSX support
  • 2
    Simple, clean UI
  • 1
    Unstable
  • 1
    Ci
  • 1
    Favorite
  • 1
    Helpful documentation
  • 1
    Autoscaling
  • 1
    Extremely configurable
  • 1
    Works
  • 1
    Android support
  • 1
    Fair pricing
  • 1
    All inclusive testing
  • 1
    Japanese in rspec comment appears OK
  • 1
    Build PR Branch Only
  • 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
    Easy to deploy to private servers
  • 1
    Really easy to use
  • 0
    Stable

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Buddy
Cons of CircleCI
  • 1
    Deleted account after 1 month of not pushing code
  • 12
    Unstable
  • 6
    Scammy pricing structure
  • 0
    Aggressive Github permissions

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

39
893
2
4.4K
2.5K
1.9K

What is Buddy?

Git platform for web and software developers with Docker-based tools for Continuous Integration and Deployment.

What is 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.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Jobs that mention Buddy and CircleCI as a desired skillset
What companies use Buddy?
What companies use CircleCI?
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

What tools integrate with Buddy?
What tools integrate with CircleCI?

Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

Blog Posts

GitNode.jsFirebase+5
7
2446
GitGitHubPython+22
17
14345
GitGitHubDocker+34
29
42819
GitGitHubSlack+30
27
18896
What are some alternatives to Buddy and CircleCI?
Git
Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.
GitHub
GitHub is the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers. Over three million people use GitHub to build amazing things together.
Visual Studio Code
Build and debug modern web and cloud applications. Code is free and available on your favorite platform - Linux, Mac OSX, and Windows.
Docker
The Docker Platform is the industry-leading container platform for continuous, high-velocity innovation, enabling organizations to seamlessly build and share any application — from legacy to what comes next — and securely run them anywhere
npm
npm is the command-line interface to the npm ecosystem. It is battle-tested, surprisingly flexible, and used by hundreds of thousands of JavaScript developers every day.
See all alternatives