No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Depot vs Tekton comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Depot
Ranking in Build Automation
25th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tekton
Ranking in Build Automation
4th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of Depot is 0.5%. The mindshare of Tekton is 4.7%, down from 11.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Build Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tekton4.7%
Depot0.5%
Other94.8%
Build Automation
 

Featured Reviews

RS
Senior Technical Lead at HCLSoftware
Managing complex code branches has been challenging but has improved team collaboration
Depot needs improvement as it was stable but also very slow. Depot's slow speed arises when we perform different integrations. On the positive side, it provides mono-repo scalability, meaning it can handle multiple users at any given time without crashing, which is a strong point. Depot should be improved for remote work because it functions poorly in that regard. Depot's branching style is also poor and could be improved. There is a steep learning curve that makes it difficult for people who previously worked on decentralized systems to adapt. It would be beneficial if Depot could become more similar to Git.
reviewer2741265 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Benefit from a smooth learning curve and efficient adaptability
After seeing Jenkins and Tekton, I think Tekton is quite built on top of Kubernetes, so the learning curve is minimal. If you are working with Kubernetes, then OpenShift created Tekton on top of that, making it easily adaptable. Tekton is highly customizable. With Kubernetes, we can customize on our own and create custom builders. If teams have time and want to make enhancements, they can do it themselves. Whatever OpenShift is providing regarding Tekton is sufficient. It is easy to use because we don't need to write every pod step every time. A proper DevOps engineer can help once or twice, and development teams can easily adapt to that, make small shell script changes in the steps, understand the process, and work with it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Depot has positively impacted my organization in an awesome way, and the fact that I can save time gives me the possibility to have more clients during the day, saving at least 20% each day because of Depot."
"Depot has positively impacted my organization by helping us manage our code better where multiple developers are working on the system."
"Depot has positively impacted our organization by ensuring that everything works fully, which makes other clients really happy."
"Tekton has a user interface that facilitates time savings, making it more user-friendly than Jenkins."
"Tekton provides a feature where you can schedule the job."
"The most valuable features of Tekton include the reusability of tasks, the clean UI interface, and the binding of services and secrets."
"The platform's most valuable feature is its wireless capability, which makes installation easy and sets up the flow."
"Tekton's most important feature is its cloud-native nature. Unlike Jenkins, which may not scale as efficiently, Tekton's CI pipeline can automatically scale up to handle increased workload demands without needing manual adjustments."
"Its seamless integration with Kubernetes, being built on top of it and utilizing Custom Resource Definitions, ensures a smooth experience within Kubernetes environments exclusively."
"I would say the customization ability that Tekton provides is good."
"You can isolate most Tekton assets in the Kubernetes namespace for your feature branch. This allows you to freely change Tekton assets and objects to adapt to your feature branch and requirements."
 

Cons

"Depot is a useful tool and there is space for improvement, but I can't figure out what can be done, which is why I chose eight out of ten."
"Depot needs improvement as it was stable but also very slow."
"However, they need improvement with older servers due to storage space issues, which prevents me from giving a perfect score of ten."
"The product's version update management process needs improvement."
"Tekton should include many features to integrate event-driven pipelines."
"The tool should improve in terms of output flexibility. It runs on a specific Kubernetes machine, and the persistent memory storage is on a single partition. Improving this aspect could make analyzing logs and toolchain outputs from external tools easier."
"While Tekton is highly effective for Kubernetes-based setups, it might not suit users who require more control over bare-metal environments."
"Tekton lacks sufficient documentation"
"Tekton could improve by adding better documentation."
"Initially, working with YAML configuration can be challenging using the solution."
"Tekton lacks integration capabilities compared to other CI/CD tools like Jenkins and Travis."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is entirely open source and free of charge."
"Tekton is an open-source tool."
"The tool is open-source and free to use."
"The product is free and open-source."
"The product is free of cost."
"The solution is open-source."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
44%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
9%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Depot?
Regarding my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Depot, I have faced many challenges with cost optimization. We need to manage what services we can use and optimize the cost, whi...
What needs improvement with Depot?
There are many things I wish were different or better about Depot. There is a lot to improve in the product's functionality, especially regarding the use cases of Kubernetes. The provider is develo...
What is your primary use case for Depot?
My main use case for Depot is for automation purposes across my whole workflow, so I can use Depot in my day-to-day tasks. Depot is really useful for automation purposes throughout the entire flow.
How does Tekton compare with Jenkins?
When you are evaluating tools for automating your own GitOps-based CI/CD workflow, it is important to keep your requirements and use cases in mind. Tekton deployment is complex and it is not very e...
What needs improvement with Tekton?
I didn't get the intention of scalability. Scalability means based on the load, it will automatically gain resources and run. The question of pipeline scalability remains unclear. It's quite easy t...
What is your primary use case for Tekton?
We use Tekton for build and deployments. For LMP testing, we use the Tekton pipeline. We also use GitHub CI/CD. For infrastructure pipelines and Infrastructure as Code (IaC), we use Tekton. Previou...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
The Home Depot, PayPal, Target, HSBC, McKesson, Oncology Venture
Find out what your peers are saying about Depot vs. Tekton and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.