GitHub Actions vs GoCD comparison

"The most valuable features of GitHub Actions include its seamless integration within GitHub, which simplifies the CI/CD pipeline setup. The scalability of using different types of runners—both public and private runners—enhances deployment flexibility."

"GitHub Actions can be easily configured, especially for environment variables and secrets. The UI is understandable and user-friendly for setting up CI/CD pipelines. I prefer tools like GitLab, where the pipeline starts quickly and is accessible near the commits for easy access. However, many CI/CD tools are interchangeable due to similar features of GitHub Actions and other similar tools."

"GitHub Actions helps automate the deployment process, eliminating manual copying and testing, which saves time and minimizes errors."

"The level of automation achievable is really good. So, the custom workflow creation and Marketplace Actions improved our project's efficiency."

"The product's most beneficial feature is the ability to create workflows within the solution."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a good product that offers stability and performance."

"It improves efficiency as it involves no downtime and is managed by GitHub."

"I find the automation feature of GitHub Actions most valuable for our building processes. It integrates seamlessly with GitHub, so there's no extra configuration needed, making the building process easy and efficient. GitHub Actions handles scalability well, automatically managing execution infrastructure without requiring additional configurations. We haven't yet explored GitHub Actions' support for AI projects, as we haven't used its AI capabilities."

"The most notable aspect is its user interface, which we find to be user-friendly and straightforward for deploying and comprehending pipelines. We have the ability to create multiple pipelines, and in addition to that, the resource consumption is impressive."

"GoCD's open-source nature is valuable."

"The UI is colorful."

"Permission separations mean that we can grant limited permissions for each team or team member."

"There is a part that detects outdated libraries. If that feature could be more intuitive and informative, that would be nice."

"In terms of improvements, I think better logging for debugging purposes would be helpful, especially for complex workflows."

"GitHub sometimes makes it difficult to debug actions."

"Sometimes incremental steps should be taken during deployment instead of trying to execute all tasks simultaneously, particularly when dealing with AWS EKS clusters and Helm charts."

"In our company, procedures or rules need to be completed, which is not a problem with GitHub Actions but with our process."

"Improvements could be made in terms of time-saving capabilities and resolving potential complexities in centralized workflows."

"GitHub Actions lacks a feature for automating the build process for mobile applications."

"The minor drawback of GitHub Actions is the management of the dashboard and pipeline runs, which needs improvement. The dashboard for running pipelines could be better."

"It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be simplified."

"The documentation really should be improved by including real examples and more setup cases."

"The aspect that requires attention is the user management component. When integrating with BitLabs and authenticating through GitLab, there are specific features we desire. One important feature is the ability to import users directly from GitLab, along with their respective designations, and assign appropriate privileges based on that information. Allocating different privileges to users is a time-consuming process for us."

"The tool must be more user-friendly."

"The cost for GitHub Actions may be around $45 dollars per user."

"Price-wise, GitHub Actions is okay. If I want to use the product's advanced features, then I need to pay the licensing charges for the solution."

"It's low-priced. Not high, but definitely low."

"The product is slightly more expensive than some alternatives."

"It is free and open platform, so I would rate it 1 out of 10."

"For our basic usage, we didn't have to pay."

"The tool's price is okay and reasonable."

"Regarding cost, as an enterprise, we negotiate our license and expenses, so I can't provide a specific rating for that."

"This is an open-source solution and it is inexpensive."

"It's an open-source and free tool."