Buildbot vs GoCD

Overview

Buildbot

Stacks73

Followers128

Votes27

GitHub Stars5.4K

Forks1.7K

GoCD

Stacks205

Followers325

Votes207

GitHub Stars7.3K

Forks980

Buildbot vs GoCD: What are the differences?

Architecture: Buildbot follows a centralized architecture where a single master server manages the build process, while agents execute tasks on the distributed system. In contrast, GoCD has a decentralized architecture with a primary server and multiple autonomous agents, allowing for more scalable and flexible configurations.
Plugin Ecosystem: Buildbot has a limited number of plugins available, which may require customization for specific needs. On the other hand, GoCD offers a wide range of plugins that can be easily integrated into the pipeline, providing more extensive functionalities and customization options.
Pipeline Configuration: Buildbot utilizes a script-based configuration approach, requiring users to write code to define the build process. In contrast, GoCD offers a graphical user interface for configuring pipelines, making it more accessible to users without extensive coding knowledge.
Support for Containers: Buildbot lacks out-of-the-box support for containerization technologies like Docker, which can be a limitation for modern CI/CD workflows. GoCD, on the other hand, provides native support for containerization, allowing for seamless integration of containerized environments into the build process.
Community and Documentation: Buildbot has a smaller community and less comprehensive documentation compared to GoCD, which can make it challenging for users to troubleshoot issues and find resources. GoCD, being backed by a larger community, offers more extensive documentation, online resources, and community support for users.
Integration with Third-Party Tools: GoCD offers better integration with popular third-party tools and services, such as GitHub, Bitbucket, and Jenkins, through pre-built plugins and extensions. Buildbot may require more manual configuration and customization to integrate with external tools, potentially leading to longer setup times and more complex workflows.

In Summary, the key differences between Buildbot and GoCD lie in their architecture, plugin ecosystem, pipeline configuration, support for containers, community support, and integration with third-party tools.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Buildbot, GoCD

Mohammad Hossein

Chief Technology Officer at Planally

Apr 17, 2020

Needs adviceon

Docker

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.

545k views545k

Comments

Sri Srinivas

Feb 11, 2020

Needs advice

I want to start automatic regressions for nightly builds and also continuous integration builds. The tests I ran are part of my regression suite. And I want to track the results of these tests.

I am able to do this with Jenkins using the Junit plugin. But, I am trying to do the same with Buildbot, and I am not able to get the report of the tests. So, I just want to know is it possible to get the reporting of tests through Buildbot. If yes, could anyone provide some examples

121k views121k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Buildbot	GoCD
BuildBot is a system to automate the compile/test cycle required by most software projects to validate code changes. By automatically rebuilding and testing the tree each time something has changed, build problems are pinpointed quickly, before other developers are inconvenienced by the failure.	GoCD is an open source continuous delivery server created by ThoughtWorks. GoCD offers business a first-class build and deployment engine for complete control and visibility.
run builds on a variety of slave platforms;arbitrary build process: handles projects using C, Python, whatever;minimal host requirements: Python and Twisted;slaves can be behind a firewall if they can still do checkout;status delivery through web page, email, IRC, other protocols;track builds in progress, provide estimated completion time;flexible configuration by subclassing generic build process classes;debug tools to force a new build, submit fake Changes, query slave status;released under the GPL	Model complex workflows with dependency management and parallel execution; Easy to pass once-built binaries between stages; Visibility into your end-to-end workflow. Track a change from commit to deploy at a glance; Manual triggers allow deployment any version at anytime. And it's securable and auditable; Run tests written in most languages or frameworks, provides informative testing report; Compare both files and commit messages across any two arbitrary builds; Eliminate Bottlenecks by providing trivial parallel execution across pipelines, platforms, versions, branches, etc.; Easily reuse pipeline configurations via template system.
Statistics
GitHub Stars 5.4K	GitHub Stars 7.3K
GitHub Forks 1.7K	GitHub Forks 980
Stacks 73	Stacks 205
Followers 128	Followers 325
Votes 27	Votes 207
Pros & Cons
Pros 9 Highly configurable builds 5 Beautiful waterfall 5 Hosted internally 4 Free open source 3 Python	Pros 32 Open source 27 Pipeline dependencies 25 Pipeline structures 22 Can run jobs in parallel 20 Very flexible Cons 2 Lack of plugins 2 Horrible ui 1 No support
Integrations
No integrations available	Docker Kubernetes Slack

What are some alternatives to Buildbot, GoCD?

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.

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.

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.

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.

TeamCity

TeamCity is a user-friendly continuous integration (CI) server for professional developers, build engineers, and DevOps. It is trivial to setup and absolutely free for small teams and open source projects.

Drone.io

Drone is a hosted continuous integration service. It enables you to conveniently set up projects to automatically build, test, and deploy as you make changes to your code. Drone integrates seamlessly with Github, Bitbucket and Google Code as well as third party services such as Heroku, Dotcloud, Google AppEngine and more.

wercker

Wercker is a CI/CD developer automation platform designed for Microservices & Container Architecture.

Shippable

Shippable is a SaaS platform that lets you easily add Continuous Integration/Deployment to your Github and BitBucket repositories. It is lightweight, super simple to setup, and runs your builds and tests faster than any other service.

Buildkite

CI and build automation tool that combines the power of your own build infrastructure with the convenience of a managed, centralized web UI. Used by Shopify, Basecamp, Digital Ocean, Venmo, Cochlear, Bugsnag and more.

Snap CI

Snap CI is a cloud-based continuous integration & continuous deployment tool with powerful deployment pipelines. Integrates seamlessly with GitHub and provides fast feedback so you can deploy with ease.

Related Comparisons

Buildbot vs GoCD: What are the differences?

Architecture: Buildbot follows a centralized architecture where a single master server manages the build process, while agents execute tasks on the distributed system. In contrast, GoCD has a decentralized architecture with a primary server and multiple autonomous agents, allowing for more scalable and flexible configurations.
Plugin Ecosystem: Buildbot has a limited number of plugins available, which may require customization for specific needs. On the other hand, GoCD offers a wide range of plugins that can be easily integrated into the pipeline, providing more extensive functionalities and customization options.
Pipeline Configuration: Buildbot utilizes a script-based configuration approach, requiring users to write code to define the build process. In contrast, GoCD offers a graphical user interface for configuring pipelines, making it more accessible to users without extensive coding knowledge.
Support for Containers: Buildbot lacks out-of-the-box support for containerization technologies like Docker, which can be a limitation for modern CI/CD workflows. GoCD, on the other hand, provides native support for containerization, allowing for seamless integration of containerized environments into the build process.
Community and Documentation: Buildbot has a smaller community and less comprehensive documentation compared to GoCD, which can make it challenging for users to troubleshoot issues and find resources. GoCD, being backed by a larger community, offers more extensive documentation, online resources, and community support for users.
Integration with Third-Party Tools: GoCD offers better integration with popular third-party tools and services, such as GitHub, Bitbucket, and Jenkins, through pre-built plugins and extensions. Buildbot may require more manual configuration and customization to integrate with external tools, potentially leading to longer setup times and more complex workflows.

Buildbot vs GoCD

Overview