GitHub Actions Alternatives That Don't Suck

Been burned by GitHub Actions pricing myself. You start small and everything's peachy, then you add iOS builds or scale up the team. Suddenly you're getting bills that make you question your career choices.

The Bills That Break Teams

GitHub Actions pricing looks reasonable until you actually use it. Linux builds are dirt cheap - like a penny per minute or whatever. But macOS? Those bastards charge 10x more. A 15-minute iOS build costs over a buck each time. Build 20 times a day during crunch and you're burning through hundreds monthly. It's insane how fast it adds up.

The Real Pain Points That Drive Migration

macOS builds that cost a fortune: If you're doing iOS development, GitHub Actions will bankrupt you. Period.

Windows builds are painfully slow: GitHub's Windows runners are fucking terrible. A .NET build that takes 5 minutes locally somehow drags on for 15+ minutes on their hardware. There's some GitHub issue with hundreds of complaints about it, but Microsoft basically ignores it.

Concurrency limits during crunch: Nothing like hitting your job limit right when you're trying to ship. Your whole team just sits there staring at queued builds during the worst possible time.

Enterprise features don't exist: Need approval workflows? Compliance scanning? You'll spend weeks duct-taping third-party actions together and praying they don't break.

Where Teams Actually Go When They Leave

CircleCI: Like GitHub Actions but it doesn't suck. Their credit system makes no sense at first, but at least builds finish faster and you won't get blindsided by insane bills.

GitLab CI/CD: For when you want everything in one place - repo, CI/CD, issues, the whole shebang. UI looks ancient but it works. Used it for a while and the integration stuff is solid.

Azure DevOps: Actually decent for Windows builds, unlike GitHub Actions. Costs money but at least .NET builds don't take forever. Microsoft's docs will put you to sleep but they're thorough.

Buildkite: Your servers, their pretty UI. More setup work but you get actual control. Perfect if you have someone who enjoys infrastructure debugging.

Jenkins: Still exists because some legacy shit just won't run anywhere else. Make sure you have someone who actually knows Jenkins or you'll be troubleshooting plugin hell every weekend.

How This Actually Works

Look, I'm not going to bullshit you with "simple 3-step process" garbage. Each section tells you what you'll actually deal with - setup time that matters, bills that won't surprise you, and the stupid shit that breaks. No marketing fluff.

Real problems, real solutions, real war stories from someone who's been through this.

For Startups and Small Teams: CircleCI's Sweet Spot

CircleCI wins for small teams because of one thing: you can start completely free and scale predictably. Their free tier has 30,000 monthly credits, which covers decent usage - maybe 1,000 build minutes on Linux runners, give or take.

Why startups love CircleCI:

• Zero configuration overhead - works with GitHub in minutes
• Performance that scales - Docker layer caching and parallel jobs included
• Transparent pricing - no surprise macOS pricing traps like GitHub Actions
• Room to grow - when you hit the free tier limits, paid tiers are reasonable

CircleCI feels faster than GitHub Actions, though I haven't done official benchmarks. Just seems like stuff finishes quicker. Docker layer caching actually works, which helps with Node.js builds that pull a million dependencies.

Best for: Teams building web applications, mobile apps (with reasonable iOS usage), or microservices who want reliable CI/CD without infrastructure management.

For Mobile Teams: The iOS Pricing Nightmare

If you're doing iOS development, GitHub Actions will financially murder you. Worked with this startup that got completely destroyed by iOS pricing - something like 1,800 bucks a month just for builds. Took them weeks to figure out where the money was going because who reads the fine print on macOS pricing?

GitHub's macOS pricing is complete bullshit - Linux builds are cheap as dirt but macOS costs 10x more. A 20-minute iOS build costs over $1.50 each time. During release sprints when you're building constantly, you just watch your burn rate explode and pray you can ship before you run out of money.

Codemagic is pricey too - almost ten cents per minute, which sounds worse than GitHub. But their builds finish faster because their macOS machines aren't complete garbage. A 20-minute GitHub build might finish in 12-15 minutes on Codemagic, so you actually save money overall.

Why Codemagic doesn't completely suck:

• Code signing actually works - spent 3 days debugging certificates on GitHub Actions, took 30 minutes on Codemagic
• TestFlight uploads don't randomly fail - GitHub Actions has some weird issue where uploads just die for no reason
• Visual editor that isn't garbage - finally, someone made a visual CI editor that doesn't make you want to scream
• Fast macOS machines - M2 instances that boot in seconds, not the 5+ minute clusterfuck GitHub gives you

Bottom line: If you're building iOS apps more than a few times a week, Codemagic will cost less than GitHub Actions despite the higher per-minute rate. If you're just poking around with iOS occasionally, stick with GitHub and deal with the slowness.

Best for: Teams that actually ship iOS apps and don't want to explain to leadership why CI costs more than their entire cloud infrastructure.

For Growing Teams: GitLab CI/CD's Integrated Advantage

GitLab CI/CD makes sense when you want everything integrated: source control, CI/CD, issue tracking, container registry, and security scanning in one platform.

The integration advantage:

• No context switching - pipelines, merge requests, and deployments in one interface
• Built-in container registry - push images without external dependencies
• Security scanning included - SAST, dependency scanning, and compliance built-in
• Predictable per-user pricing - $19-29/user/month with no surprise usage charges

GitLab's free tier has... I think around 400 CI/CD minutes monthly? Pretty tight, but paid tiers give you more compute. Works well for teams managing multiple repos and complex deployments.

Migration reality: Moving to GitLab usually means moving your repos too, which is a pain. Took us about 3 weeks to fully migrate, but having everything integrated is nice once you're there. Less context switching between tools.

Best for: Teams wanting integrated DevOps workflows, container-heavy applications, compliance-focused organizations, or teams already frustrated by juggling multiple DevOps tools.

For Enterprise Teams: Azure DevOps Gets Windows Right

Azure DevOps dominates in enterprises for one critical reason: Windows builds that don't suck.

GitHub's Windows builds are slow as hell. Like, really slow. There's some GitHub issue about it with tons of complaints, but Microsoft basically said 'use Azure instead' without saying it directly. Azure DevOps Windows runners are noticeably faster for .NET stuff.

Enterprise features that matter:

• Advanced branch policies - required reviewers, status checks, path-based rules
• Work item integration - link commits to user stories and requirements
• Audit and compliance - detailed logging, role-based access, approval workflows
• Hybrid deployment options - cloud + on-premises agents for security requirements

Their pricing starts around $6/user/month for basic stuff. Hosted pipeline minutes cost extra - I think it's like $40 per parallel job or something like that. The pricing isn't bad compared to getting surprised by massive usage bills elsewhere.

Best for: .NET development teams, enterprises with Windows applications, organizations needing compliance features, or teams already invested in Microsoft ecosystems.

For DevOps-Heavy Teams: Buildkite's Ultimate Control

Buildkite takes a different approach: your infrastructure, their UI. You run lightweight agents on your own hardware while using Buildkite's cloud dashboard for pipeline management.

Why DevOps teams choose Buildkite:

• Ultimate customization - any language, any environment, any toolchain
• Your security model - agents run in your VPC with your access controls
• Predictable costs - $15-40/user/month regardless of usage intensity
• Scales infinitely - add more agents as needed without platform restrictions

The agent architecture means you control the entire build environment. Need GPU access? Install CUDA. Require specific security tools? Install them on your agents. Need to build on ARM? Deploy ARM agents.

Setup complexity: More work upfront. Spent about 2 weeks getting our agents configured properly, figuring out networking, security groups, all that. But once it's working, it's actually pretty solid and predictable.

Best for: Teams with complex build requirements, strict security constraints, variable workload patterns, or existing infrastructure they want to leverage.

For Legacy Systems: Jenkins Still Has a Place

Jenkins remains relevant for organizations with complex, legacy workflows that modern platforms can't easily accommodate.

Jenkins advantages in 2025:

• Runs anywhere - on-premises, air-gapped networks, custom hardware
• Ultimate plugin ecosystem - 1,800+ plugins for virtually every integration
• Complete control - modify source code, create custom plugins, integrate with anything
• No vendor lock-in - your data, your infrastructure, your rules

Jenkins reality check: The server costs are nothing - hundred bucks a month, whatever. But someone has to babysit it constantly. Plugins break on updates, Java version conflicts, agents just randomly go offline. Budget at least half a day every week keeping it from falling apart.

Best for: Organizations with dedicated DevOps teams, legacy systems requiring custom integrations, air-gapped environments, or teams that need complete control over their CI/CD infrastructure.

Each platform succeeds in specific contexts. Match your team's reality - size, skills, constraints, and growth plans - to the platform designed for your situation.