Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Buddy vs Jenkins: What are the differences?
Key Differences between Buddy and Jenkins
Buddy and Jenkins are both popular continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) tools commonly used in software development pipelines. While they serve similar purposes, there are several key differences that set them apart from each other.
User Interface: Buddy provides a modern and visually appealing user interface that is intuitive and user-friendly. It offers a more polished UI design with various customization options for ease of use. On the other hand, Jenkins has a more dated and less user-friendly interface that requires more technical expertise to navigate and configure.
Deployment Speed: Buddy is known for its fast and efficient deployment speed. It utilizes a highly optimized CI/CD process that allows for quick execution and deployment of software changes. In contrast, Jenkins can be slower in terms of deployment due to its more complex setup and configuration process.
Integration and Plugins: Buddy offers a wide range of integrations and plugins to enhance the development and deployment process. It seamlessly integrates with popular tools and platforms such as Slack, AWS, Azure, and Docker. While Jenkins also provides integration capabilities, it often requires additional plugins and configurations to achieve the same level of compatibility.
Ease of Setup: Buddy simplifies the setup process by providing a user-friendly interface for configuring pipelines and automating workflows. It offers predefined actions and templates, making it easier for developers to get started. Jenkins, on the other hand, requires more configuration and setup expertise, often involving scripting and complex configurations.
Scalability: Buddy is designed to handle scalability with ease. It can efficiently handle parallelism and multiple deployments simultaneously, enabling teams to scale their development processes as needed. Jenkins, although capable of scaling, may require additional infrastructure and configurations to achieve the same level of scalability.
Pricing Model: Buddy offers a straightforward and transparent pricing model based on the number of executions, which allows for more predictable costs. Jenkins, being an open-source tool, is free to use but may incur additional costs for infrastructure and maintenance depending on the setup.
In summary, Buddy provides a user-friendly interface, faster deployment speed, seamless integrations, simplified setup, scalability, and a transparent pricing model compared to Jenkins.
We are currently using Azure Pipelines for continous integration. Our applications are developed witn .NET framework. But when we look at the online Jenkins is the most widely used tool for continous integration. Can you please give me the advice which one is best to use for my case Azure pipeline or jenkins.
If your source code is on GitHub, also take a look at Github actions. https://github.com/features/actions
I'm open to anything. just want something that break less and doesn't need me to pay for it, and can be hosted on Docker. our scripting language is powershell core. so it's better to support it. also we are building dotnet core in our pipeline, so if they have anything related that helps with the CI would be nice.
Google cloud build can help you. It is hosted on cloud and also provide reasonable free quota.
I'm planning to setup complete CD-CD setup for spark and python application which we are going to deploy in aws lambda and EMR Cluster. Which tool would be best one to choose. Since my company is trying to adopt to concourse i would like to understand what are the lack of capabilities concourse have . Thanks in advance !
I would definetly recommend Concourse to you, as it is one of the most advanced modern methods of making CI/CD while Jenkins is an old monolithic dinosaur. Concourse itself is cloudnative and containerbased which helps you to build simple, high-performance and scalable CI/CD pipelines. In my opinion, the only lack of skills you have with Concourse is your own knowledge of how to build pipelines and automate things. Technincally there is no lack, i would even say you can extend it way more easily. But as a Con it is more easy to interact with Jenkins if you are only used to UIs. Concourse needs someone which is capable of using CLIs.
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).
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.
Pros of Buddy
- Easy setup56
- Docker53
- Continuous Integration50
- Integrations49
- Beautiful dashboard46
- Git hosting45
- Free43
- Unlimited pipelines42
- Monitoring39
- Backup39
- Great UX37
- On-Premises32
- Awesome support31
- AWS Integrations6
- Great UI5
- Hosted internally (Enterprise)3
- Slack integration3
- Continuous deployment3
- Simple deployments3
- Bitbucket integration3
- Github integration2
- UI and YML configuration2
- Node.js support2
- Azure integration2
- Amazing + free2
- Support for build pipelines1
- Docker support1
- Gitlab integration1
- Android support1
- Pushover integration1
- DigitalOcean integration1
- UpCloud integration1
- Shopify integration1
- New Relic integration0
- Rollbar integration0
- Sentry integration0
- Loggly integration0
- Datadog integration0
- Bugsnag integration0
- Honeybadger integration0
- Telegram integration0
- HipChat integration0
- Discord integration0
- Pushbulet integration0
- AWS integration0
- Slack Integration0
- Google Cloud integration0
- Heroku integration0
- Rackspace integration0
- Kubernetes support0
Pros of Jenkins
- Hosted internally523
- Free open source469
- Great to build, deploy or launch anything async318
- Tons of integrations243
- Rich set of plugins with good documentation211
- Has support for build pipelines111
- Easy setup68
- It is open-source66
- Workflow plugin53
- Configuration as code13
- Very powerful tool12
- Many Plugins11
- Continuous Integration10
- Great flexibility10
- Git and Maven integration is better9
- 100% free and open source8
- Github integration7
- Slack Integration (plugin)7
- Easy customisation6
- Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)6
- Docker support5
- Pipeline API5
- Fast builds4
- Platform idnependency4
- Hosted Externally4
- Excellent docker integration4
- It`w worked3
- Customizable3
- Can be run as a Docker container3
- It's Everywhere3
- JOBDSL3
- AWS Integration3
- Easily extendable with seamless integration2
- PHP Support2
- Build PR Branch Only2
- NodeJS Support2
- Ruby/Rails Support2
- Universal controller2
- Loose Coupling2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Buddy
- Deleted account after 1 month of not pushing code1
Cons of Jenkins
- Workarounds needed for basic requirements13
- Groovy with cumbersome syntax10
- Plugins compatibility issues8
- Lack of support7
- Limited abilities with declarative pipelines7
- No YAML syntax5
- Too tied to plugins versions4