GitHub Actions vs GoCD comparison

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

"Creating workflows in YAML format is straightforward and easy to comprehend. This includes both understanding and writing workflows. Additionally, the downloading aspect for third-party instances can also be easily done. It's worth noting that vulnerability analysis and similar tasks should be part of our automation through data workflows. Furthermore, we can break down our processes step by step, starting from building, then moving on to analysis, testing, and finally deploying in production and the clear environment. All of these tasks can be efficiently managed within this platform."

"The most valuable feature of GitHub Actions is the ability to automate various tasks, such as backups and deployments, to ease the development workflow."

"I am familiar with the entire life cycle of the product."

"It is a very stable solution as we have not faced any issues."

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

"We can trigger files manually or automate processes."

"GitHub Actions is a beautiful tool that integrates smoothly with all major tools, reducing CI/CD work by 30% to 40%."

"The UI is colorful."

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

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

"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."

"The main improvement would be to add support for more programming languages and frameworks."

"The main challenge I've experienced is with integration, particularly uploading to OneDrive, which was more complex compared to Google Drive or AWS S3 bucket."

"The reporting capabilities are somewhat limited."

"The UI could be better."

"Sometimes it is quite complex to commit code from our local system to the GitHub repository; creating a folder in GitHub can be tedious."

"The solution's integration capabilities and UI are areas of concern where improvement is required to make the product more user-friendly."

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

"GitHub sometimes makes it difficult to debug actions."

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

"The tool must be more user-friendly."

"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."

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

"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."

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

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

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

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

"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."

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

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

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