- One popular name only covers half the work
- Where the pipelines would live
- Eight options in alphabetical order
- Inside your Git host, or separate from it?
- Add-ons are the hidden migration
- Hosted machines or your own runners?
- Pipelines that live in the repository
- When keeping the old server is the right call
- Tell the team before the first pipeline moves
- Plan the move pipeline by pipeline
- Frequently asked questions
Move when the server itself has become the job. Teams already on one Git host often prefer pipelines that live inside it, teams that want no servers lean towards a managed CI service, and teams that want to keep control can pick a lighter self-hosted engine. Check whether you're replacing build and test, deployment, or both.
Jenkins calls itself a self-contained, open source automation server for building, testing and delivering software, and plenty of teams still run it happily. If you're a developer or DevOps lead looking around, the trigger is usually upkeep: a machine to patch, add-ons to keep current and pipelines only one person fully understands. That's a good reason to look, as long as you're clear about what you'd be giving up.
One popular name only covers half the work
Argo CD turns up on many switching lists. Its own docs describe it as declarative GitOps continuous delivery for Kubernetes: it handles getting releases onto a cluster. It doesn't compile code or run tests, so on its own it can't stand in for a CI server.
If your current server does both building and deploying, moving to a delivery tool means you still need something for the build-and-test half. Plenty of teams run a CI service for building and testing, then hand off to a GitOps tool for deployment. That's a sensible design, but it's two tools, not one.
Before you compare anything, write down every job your server does today. Builds, tests, releases, scheduled tasks, deployments. Then check each candidate against that list, not against a feature page.
Where the pipelines would live
| Tool | Covers | Shortlist it when |
|---|---|---|
| Argo CD | Delivery to Kubernetes | Releases go to Kubernetes |
| Buildkite | Builds on your own machines | Builds must stay on your hardware |
| CircleCI | Pipelines from VCS, API or app | You trigger runs from several places |
| Drone | Continuous integration | Fully open community code matters |
| GitHub Actions | CI/CD | Repos already live on GitHub |
| GitLab CI/CD | CI/CD | Repos already live on GitLab |
| TeamCity | CI/CD | Workflows vary a lot between teams |
| Woodpecker CI | CI | Small and quick beats feature-rich |
Most readers can cross off half these rows in a minute: if your code lives on one Git host, its built-in option leads, and if nothing ships to Kubernetes, the delivery-only row drops out. Use the last column to cut the rest down to the names worth a trial.
Eight options in alphabetical order
Argo CD
GitOps continuous delivery for Kubernetes, without the build step.
Buildkite
Open-source agents run builds on your own infrastructure, and Buildkite publishes a guide for moving from Jenkins.
CircleCI
Starts pipelines from version control, its API or its app.
Drone
From Harness; the Community Edition has no proprietary code.
GitHub Actions
Hosted Linux, Windows and macOS machines, or self-hosted runners.
GitLab CI/CD
Pipelines live in a .gitlab-ci.yml file at each project's root.
TeamCity
JetBrains' CI/CD tool for many kinds of workflow.
Woodpecker CI
Designed to be lightweight, simple and fast, says its site.
Inside your Git host, or separate from it?
The biggest choice isn't which tool, it's where pipelines are defined. When CI lives inside your Git host, pipeline files sit next to the code and people already have access. When it's a separate product, you get more independence from any one host, but another login, another set of permissions and another place to look when a build fails.
If your code is all on one host and likely to stay there, the built-in option is usually the shortest path. Our GitHub Actions vs Jenkins comparison goes into that pairing in more detail. If your code is spread across hosts, a separate tool keeps things in one place. New to the terms? Our explainer on what continuous integration and delivery mean sets out the basics.
Add-ons are the hidden migration
Long-running build servers tend to collect extensions and add-ons. Each one solved a problem once, and some of them quietly hold important behaviour: a notification, a credential lookup, a report someone reads every Monday. When you move, those don't come with you.
Want AI doing the heavy lifting in your marketing?
I build the systems that handle the boring 80 percent, so you get your week back. Done properly, with the human kept in.
Before you start, list the extensions and add-ons you've installed and ask what each one does for you. Some will map to a built-in feature in the new tool. Some you won't need at all. A few will need a script or a different approach, and it's far better to find those in week one than on release day.
Hosted machines or your own runners?
Some of these tools run your builds on machines the vendor looks after; others run them on hardware you control, and GitHub Actions lets you mix both. Hosted machines remove patching from your list. Your own runners keep code and build tools inside your network, which some companies insist on.
A useful middle path is to start on hosted machines for most projects and add your own runners only where a build needs special hardware, private network access or a particular operating system. That keeps the upkeep low without blocking the awkward cases.
Pipelines that live in the repository
GitLab CI/CD is the clearest example here: you add a .gitlab-ci.yml file to the root of each project and the pipeline lives there. The upside of that pattern is that changes to a pipeline go through the same review as changes to the code, and you can see who changed what and when. If another tool on your shortlist works differently, its own docs will say where pipelines are defined.
If your current pipelines live mostly in a web interface, a file-based setup is a bigger shift than it sounds. Plan time to turn each job into a file, and agree who reviews pipeline changes. Once it's done, new projects can copy a working file instead of clicking through screens.
When keeping the old server is the right call
If your pipelines are stable, the add-ons are under control and someone on the team enjoys looking after it, staying put is a fair choice. Migrations take weeks, and a working build system is worth a lot. Move when the upkeep is stealing time from product work, not just because a newer tool looks tidier.
Tell the team before the first pipeline moves
Developers notice CI changes fast: a red build in a new place, a different log screen, a new way to rerun a job. A short note before the first move, saying which project is going first, where its builds will show up and who to ask, saves a week of confused messages. Repeat it each time a new batch of pipelines changes over.
Plan the move pipeline by pipeline
- List every job the old server runs, including the scheduled ones people forget.
- Pick one simple pipeline, ideally a library with fast tests.
- Rebuild it in the candidate tool and run both for a fortnight.
- Compare results on every commit: same passes, same failures, similar timing.
- Move secrets and credentials last, and only through the new tool's own secrets feature.
- Retire old jobs one by one, never in a single weekend.
Want your tool on this list? Featured spots and reviews here are paid partnerships. Here's how to partner with me.
Frequently asked questions
Can Argo CD replace my build server?
No. It deploys, so you'd still need CI.
Is there a migration guide from Jenkins?
Yes, Buildkite publishes one.
Can GitHub Actions run on my own machines?
Yes, through self-hosted runners.
Is Buildkite's runner open source?
Yes. Buildkite says its agents are open-source, cross-platform build runners.
Which of these come from larger software companies?
Drone comes from Harness and TeamCity from JetBrains.
Should I move every pipeline at once?
No. Move one, compare, then carry on.
