Buildkite vs GoCD comparison

Buildkite and Thoughtworks are both solutions in the Build Automation category. Buildkite is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.2, while Thoughtworks is ranked #17 with an average rating of 7.3. Buildkite holds a 1.2% mindshare in BA, compared to Thoughtworks’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of Buildkite users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Thoughtworks users who would recommend it.

Buildkite

Read 14 Buildkite reviews

304 Views
110 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

GoCD

Read 7 GoCD reviews

631 Views
278 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Buildkite

GoCD

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

GoCD and Buildkite compete in the continuous integration and delivery space, with Buildkite generally having the advantage due to advanced features, although GoCD is noted for better pricing and support.

Features: GoCD is praised for its visualization capabilities, easy versioned configuration tracking, and comprehensive auditing tools. Buildkite is lauded for elastic scalability, the ability to run pipelines on any infrastructure, and great integration capabilities.

Room for Improvement: GoCD could benefit from an expanded plugin ecosystem, enhanced cloud integration, and streamlined user experience. Buildkite, while strong in many areas, could improve on simplifying its setup process, providing more built-in features without manual configurations, and offering further enhancements to its user interface for better accessibility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GoCD's on-premise deployment appeals to organizations wanting internal control and is backed by robust service. Buildkite offers a seamless SaaS deployment experience with minimal maintenance, making it ideal for cloud-based operations, with commendable customer support that efficiently resolves complex queries.

Pricing and ROI: GoCD's open-source nature offers cost-effective pricing, making it appealing to budget-conscious teams with significant ROI. Buildkite, despite higher costs, provides strong ROI through time-saving automation, making it more attractive to larger organizations with complex pipelines.

To learn more, read our detailed Buildkite vs. GoCD Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Buildkite vs. GoCD

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 857,162 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Buildkite

Ranking in Build Automation

8th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

GoCD

Ranking in Build Automation

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (15th), Release Automation (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of Buildkite is 1.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GoCD is 1.5%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Build Automation

Featured Reviews

Prabin Silwal

Senior Engineering Consultant at ASSURANCE IQ, INC.

Has an easy setup phase while also offering good documentation

The problem we are facing sometimes is that we have lots of unit testers, and we have to wait about ten minutes to complete all of those because we want to run or find a way. It's not directly due to the limitation of the tool as well, but when we are running the spec, we want to run those parallelly and decrease the downtime so that our deployment can be faster. I think that one is not possible only due to the it also depends upon the unit test framework as well we are using. When we tried with the multiple test cases in a parallel manner, there were some dependencies, and one over another kept failing. We make those sequential calls. The aforementioned area consists of the issues my company faced while using Buildkite.

Read full review

Nishant Narayan Singh

DevOps Architect at Cognizant

Simplifies the pipeline process, but the access control system needs enhancement

One area of product improvement is the access control system. It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be simplified. The folder structure is another aspect that could be enhanced, as all jobs are displayed on a single page without the clear organization seen in Jenkins. Implementing a more structured approach to organizing jobs would improve user experience. AI could simplify job creation. For example, instead of manually editing pipelines as code, an AI tool could allow users to input variables and automatically generate the required jobs. It would help reduce human errors, such as issues that arise from incorrect edits in large code files.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a stable solution."

"Buildkite allows us to build automations and integration tasks effectively."

"What I like best about Buildkite is its workflow management. You define YAML files to specify what needs to be done. The jobs can run based on a schedule, like a cron job, where you set it to run every night or every week. Additionally, you can set up triggers, such as new pushes to a repository."

"Buildkite makes it easier to conduct deployment. When I merge a PR in Buildkite, it automatically starts the deployment process. It used to be challenging to shift code from the development branch to the testing branch because I had to follow up with multiple developers. Previously, I was dependent on the DevOps team and developers to handle deployments, but now it allows me to deploy the solutions myself.This has made it much easier for me to handle both non-production and production environments."

"If you join our team, it's very easy to learn Buildkite. We have our own boilerplate, so you can just clone it and add your configuration steps. Plus, we have documentation available to guide you through the process."

"The product's initial setup phase was easy."

"The tool's flexibility with pipelines gave us a lot of advantages, especially when managing a huge amount of microservices."

"The solution can be considered as a very well-polished platform with a really great UI."

More Buildkite pros

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

"The UI is colorful."

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

"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."

Cons

"There is a need for rework occasionally, and issues like syntax errors can occur multiple times, especially when manual changes are made in AWS or Amazon Connect that are not captured in the code."

"Since we were using Buildkite for the first time, we had a lot of difficulty understanding how it worked. We didn't find any documentation from third parties; only Buildkite provided documentation. As a result, we faced a steep learning curve. After some time, it became much easier to use. Initially, understanding certain features, like the R integration, was challenging."

"Most of our projects involve both front-end and back-end development. We write the code and then create a file to set up our process, including specifying the tests we want to run. Before deploying to production, we need to install and configure certain things. We need something like Docker Pro, but I'm unsure about that. I'm familiar with the steps for using Buildkite for this process. We start by defining which tests to run."

"My company has had problems with the tool's parallel running and execution time. The testing framework also has some limitations. The tool cannot do everything."

"The solution should offer more options for installing an agent and give users the option of having a separate self-hosted or provisioned agent."

"Based on the load, the agents can be scaled up and scaled down, and while they are scaling up, sometimes they just get stuck."

"I would like to see some improvements in the hooks implementation."

"It gets very complex if you want the tool to scale automatically."

More Buildkite cons

"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."

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

"The tool must be more user-friendly."

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The self-hosted option is pretty cheap."

"We used the solution’s free version."

"For a business plan, it was 19 USD per month per user."

"The solution's per-user pricing model suits huge enterprises but is expensive for small to medium businesses."

"I find Buildkite cost-effective as it has definitely increased my productivity, especially on the deployment side. It saved a lot of my time and improved data management because I can handle different environments myself now."

"Buildkite is known to be cheaper than GitHub Workflows, which is considered a standard in the industry. It can be cost-effective, especially for organizations that heavily utilize Docker and containerization, because every code change triggers a new build. Its integration with AWS, particularly with ECR, and its caching capabilities with layers are powerful features."

"I don't think the tool is expensive."

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

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

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Computer Software Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Retailer

12%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Buildkite?

One area that needs improvement in Buildkite is the requirement for rework of the code. There can be syntax errors when running the Buildkite pipeline, especially if someone has made manual changes...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Buildkite?

I use Buildkite for deployment tasks related to building AMI images and deploying routing profile queues into Amazon Connect. This involves using Buildkite in conjunction with GitHub. We create fil...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Buildkite?

With two years of experience on Buildkite, I would recommend it to others due to its manageable pipeline and the support team available for big issues. I am satisfied with it, rating its stability ...

See all answers

What do you like most about GoCD?

The UI is colorful.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GoCD?

The product is free of cost.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GoCD?

See all answers

Comparisons

GitHub Actions vs Buildkite

Compared 39% of the time

Tekton vs Buildkite

Compared 18% of the time

Harness vs Buildkite

Compared 15% of the time

Nx vs Buildkite

Compared 15% of the time

GitLab vs Buildkite

Compared 14% of the time

More Buildkite Competitors

GitLab vs GoCD

Compared 33% of the time

Jenkins vs GoCD

Compared 28% of the time

GitHub Actions vs GoCD

Compared 18% of the time

Tekton vs GoCD

Compared 11% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs GoCD

Compared 10% of the time

More GoCD Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Buildkite

June 2025

Download Buildkite product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

May 2025

Download GoCD product report

Also Known As

No data available

Adaptive ALM, Thoughtworks Go

Overview

Buildkite is a powerful CI/CD tool praised for its scalability and flexibility in automating and managing complex workflows across multiple platforms. Its integration capabilities with various systems and supports for secure, customizable environments enhance development efficiency and data privacy. The feedback highlights significant boosts in productivity and operational cost reduction, making Buildkite a strategic asset for businesses aiming to streamline development tasks and align with organizational goals.

Buildkite

GoCD is an open source continuous delivery server created by ThoughtWorks. GoCD offers businesses a first-class build and deployment engine for complete control and visibility. It was designed for continuous delivery and the concepts essential to this practice are built in at the core.

Thoughtworks

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Ancestry.com, Barclay Card, AutoTrader, BT Financial Group, Gamesys, Nike, Vodafone, Haufe Lexware, Medidata, Hoovers

Buyer's Guide

Buildkite vs. GoCD

June 2025

Free Report: Buildkite vs. GoCD

Find out what your peers are saying about Buildkite vs. GoCD and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Buildkite 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.