We performed a comparison between AWS CodePipeline and GoCD based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Build Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Code deployment is the best feature."
"The integrations are good."
"In AWS, the Cloud DevOps is a managed service from CodeCommit and this has removed the need for a lot of manual steps."
"I find performance to be the most valuable CodePipeline feature. It works perfectly and smoothly."
"The integration with other applications is fabulous."
"The product is a one-stop solution that you can use to integrate, deploy and host your application."
"The tool's recent version helps us to run pipelines in parallel. The integration with other AWS services has greatly impacted our use of AWS CodePipeline. It made tasks such as integrating with Jira and provisioning instances much easier."
"The most valuable feature of AWS CodePipeline is the flexibility of the configuration."
"Permission separations mean that we can grant limited permissions for each team or team member."
"The UI is colorful."
"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."
"If you're talking about multi-cloud, you can't use it."
"There could be a possibility of deploying tag-based conditions for different environments using the same code base."
"The support team’s response time must be improved."
"The migration process from one source code to another needs improvement."
"The solution could improve the documentation. Sometimes we have some issues with the documentation not updating after releasing .NET 6. We had some issues with building the code pipeline, and it was not updating the documentation. It's better to update the code documentation."
"AWS CodePipeline functions well, but there's room for improvement in providing technical support to regular customers who haven't purchased developer support. I mean, having it available for everyone, even if it's not a 24-hour service. It would be more useful if specific support hours were available for assistance."
"It would be a much better tool if it could be made compatible with other cloud services as well since this is an area the product currently lacks."
"AWS CodePipeline doesn't offer much room for customization."
"The tool must be more user-friendly."
"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."
AWS CodePipeline is ranked 4th in Build Automation with 13 reviews while GoCD is ranked 8th in Build Automation with 6 reviews. AWS CodePipeline is rated 8.4, while GoCD is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AWS CodePipeline writes "A fully managed service with excellent integrations and a flexible architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GoCD writes "User-friendly, useful multiple pipeline capabilities, and low resource consumption". AWS CodePipeline is most compared with GitLab, AWS CodeStar, Jenkins, GitHub Actions and Bitrise, whereas GoCD is most compared with GitLab, Tekton, Microsoft Azure DevOps, GitHub Actions and UrbanCode Deploy. See our AWS CodePipeline vs. GoCD report.
See our list of best Build Automation vendors.
We monitor all Build Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
