Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
GitLab CI vs Semaphore: What are the differences?
GitLab CI and Semaphore are both popular continuous integration (CI) tools used in software development. While they have similar goals of automating the build, testing, and deployment processes, there are key differences between them that distinguish their features and capabilities.
Integration with GitLab: One major difference between GitLab CI and Semaphore is their integration with GitLab. GitLab CI is an integral part of GitLab, offering seamless integration with its source code management (SCM) features. On the other hand, Semaphore is a standalone CI tool that can integrate with various SCM platforms, including GitLab. This means that if your development workflow is centered around GitLab, GitLab CI provides a more tightly integrated experience.
Configuration Syntax: GitLab CI and Semaphore also differ in terms of their configuration syntax. GitLab CI uses a YAML-based configuration file (
.gitlab-ci.yml) where users define their pipeline stages, jobs, and associated commands. Semaphore, on the other hand, uses a declarative approach with its own configuration language, which allows for easy definition of build steps, commands, and environments.Runner Infrastructure: Another difference lies in their runner infrastructure. GitLab CI allows the flexibility of using either shared runners (which are provided by GitLab) or dedicated runners (installed on your own infrastructure). Semaphore, in contrast, uses its own cloud infrastructure for runners, eliminating the hassle of managing and scaling runners yourself.
Pre-installed Software: GitLab CI and Semaphore also vary in terms of pre-installed software. GitLab CI provides a range of commonly used tools and packages pre-installed on its runners, enabling easier setup and compatibility with various build processes. Semaphore, on the other hand, requires explicit installation of any necessary tools or dependencies, giving users more control over their environment.
Pricing Model: When it comes to pricing, GitLab CI and Semaphore have different models. GitLab CI is free to use for public repositories and offers paid plans for private repositories, with pricing based on the number of users. Semaphore, on the other hand, follows a subscription-based model where pricing is based on the concurrent jobs running per month, providing more flexibility depending on your needs.
Extensibility and Community Support: A notable difference between GitLab CI and Semaphore is their extensibility and community support. GitLab CI benefits from the larger GitLab community, which offers extensive documentation, resources, and a wide range of community-contributed integrations. Semaphore, although having a smaller community, provides a streamlined and user-friendly user interface with good documentation and support.
In Summary, GitLab CI offers tighter integration with GitLab, uses a YAML-based configuration file, allows for flexibility with runner infrastructure, provides pre-installed software on runners, follows a user-based pricing model, and benefits from the larger GitLab community. Semaphore, on the other hand, can integrate with various SCM platforms, uses a declarative configuration approach, utilizes its own runner infrastructure, requires explicit installation of software, follows a job-based pricing model, and provides a streamlined user experience with good documentation and support.
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 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
Pros of Semaphore
- Easy setup20
- Fast builds15
- Free for private github repos14
- Great customer support8
- Free for open source6
- Organizations ready5
- Slack integration4
- SSH debug access2
- GitHub Integration2
- Easy to use1
- Continuous Deployment1
- Pipeline builder GUI1
- BitBucket integration1
- Docker support1
- Simple UI1
- Parallelism1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of GitLab CI
- Works best with GitLab repositories2
Cons of Semaphore
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is GitLab CI?
What is Semaphore?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with GitLab CI?
What tools integrate with Semaphore?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+44