Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

JFrog Pipeline vs Travis CI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

JFrog Pipeline
Ranking in Build Automation
26th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Travis CI
Ranking in Build Automation
21st
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of JFrog Pipeline is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Travis CI is 1.1%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Build Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Steve Buttler - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 19, 2018
Testing against multiple run times, versions, and environments is a plus point
We are using Shippable to automate our CI/CD, so we (and our developers) can focus on our core business.  Shippable has tremendously increased our product and features delivery by at least three times. The platform has some amazing features and the integration option makes it very simple to plug…
Pravar Agrawal - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 17, 2024
YAML-based configuration and simple deployment but user interface needs modernizing
Travis CI is an okay tool, and I am forced to use it as part of my job. I don't maintain it; it is running somewhere else, and I don't have control over it. The interface is very basic and not user-friendly; it feels like it was stuck in 2010. It is very basic and designed for lightweight CI work, and it cannot handle heavy CI. You cannot do branched flows, and you will have to write shell scripts to send calls here and there. The pipelines are not as detailed as some other CI/CD tools. If Travis is down, you don't have any control over it and need to reach out to their customer support.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Testing against multiple run times, versions, and environments is a plus point with the additional pipelines making it more interesting to see what is happening across your development process in a single pane of glass."
"The platform has some amazing features and the integration option makes it very simple to plug with any of our favorite tools."
"The only thing I like about Travis CI is that you have a YAML file to define a Travis flow."
 

Cons

"They could work on reducing the number of permissions required while using Bitbucket."
"The interface is very basic and not user-friendly; it feels like it was stuck in 2010."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is the cheapest compared to the other platforms out there."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
815,690 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Travis CI?
I'm not too sure about the pricing of Travis or how the agreement works.
What needs improvement with Travis CI?
Travis CI is an okay tool, and I am forced to use it as part of my job. I don't maintain it; it is running somewhere else, and I don't have control over it. The interface is very basic and not user...
What is your primary use case for Travis CI?
Travis CI is mainly used to run integration tests as part of the deployment, which I do on Kubernetes. The Travis workflows are integrated with any changes in my code. It will have different jobs, ...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Shippable
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SAP, Today Tix, Cisco, Lithium, Pushspring, Packet
Facebook, Heroku, Mozilla, Zendesk, twitter, Rails
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Google, Jenkins and others in Build Automation. Updated: October 2024.
815,690 professionals have used our research since 2012.