Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Codeship vs GitLab CI: What are the differences?
Developers describe Codeship as "A Continuous Integration Platform in the cloud". 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. On the other hand, GitLab CI is detailed as "GitLab integrated CI to test, build and deploy your code". GitLab offers a continuous integration service. If you add a .gitlab-ci.yml file to the root directory of your repository, and configure your GitLab project to use a Runner, then each merge request or push triggers your CI pipeline.
Codeship and GitLab CI can be categorized as "Continuous Integration" tools.
"Simple deployments" is the top reason why over 214 developers like Codeship, while over 16 developers mention "Robust CI with awesome Docker support" as the leading cause for choosing GitLab CI.
According to the StackShare community, Codeship has a broader approval, being mentioned in 277 company stacks & 82 developers stacks; compared to GitLab CI, which is listed in 210 company stacks and 93 developer stacks.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Pros of Codeship
- Simple deployments215
- Easy setup179
- Github integration159
- Continuous deployment147
- Bitbucket integration110
- Easy ui97
- Slack integration84
- Fast builds66
- Great ui61
- Great customer support61
- SSH debug access28
- Free plan for 5 private repositories27
- Easy to get started27
- Competitively priced23
- Notifications20
- Hipchat, Campfire integrations20
- Awesome UI16
- Fast15
- Great documentation14
- Great experience13
- Free for open source12
- Great Tutorials10
- GitLab integration4
- Free4
- Easy to use, above all and its free for basic use4
- Easy for CI first timers3
- BitBucket Support3
- Very easy to get started3
- Build private Github repos on the free plan3
- Awesome3
- Super easy setup, works great with py.test/tox2
- Openshift integration2
- Great support, even on free tier2
- AppEngine integration2
- Easy debugging with ssh2
- Integrates with other free software2
- Superfast team work integration2
- Grepping Codeship = 1 day. Grepping Bamboo = 1 month2
- Easy to set up, very nice GitHub integration2
- Up and running in few minutes, and above all UI2
Pros of GitLab CI
- Robust CI with awesome Docker support22
- Simple configuration13
- All in one solution9
- Source Control and CI in one place7
- Integrated with VCS on commit5
- Free and open source5
- Easy to configure own build server i.e. GitLab-Runner5
- Hosted internally2
- Built-in Docker Registry1
- Built-in support of Review Apps1
- Pipeline could be started manually1
- Enable or disable pipeline by using env variables1
- Gitlab templates could be shared across logical group1
- Easy to setup the dedicated runner to particular job1
- Built-in support of Kubernetes1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Codeship
- Ui could use some polishing3
- Antiquated ui0
- Difficult to answer build questions0
Cons of GitLab CI
- Works best with GitLab repositories2