Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GitHub Actions vs Incredibuild 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

GitHub Actions
Ranking in Build Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Incredibuild
Ranking in Build Automation
25th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of GitHub Actions is 10.1%, up from 8.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Incredibuild is 1.0%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Build Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
GitHub Actions10.1%
Incredibuild1.0%
Other88.9%
Build Automation
 

Featured Reviews

MuhammadAzhar Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Integration with various environments and cloud providers enhances automation
I use GitHub Actions for CI/CD pipelines. I automate infrastructure, deployment, and all processes. Most companies use CI/CD pipelines, and GitHub Actions is one of the tools available for this purpose The most valuable feature of GitHub Actions is that it is completely free. It can be integrated…
ZM
Saves time for developers, which saves money for the company
We are using the Incredibuild agent to run multiple processes on all available cores. This is the improvement that we did. Instead of the machine's core doing task after task, it is now running on multiple machines. In my working environment, it is saving time for all our developers in regards to the time consumption of the builds. My team has four people who manage and interact with Incredibuild as a product.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of GitHub Actions is the ability to automate various tasks, such as backups and deployments, to ease the development workflow."
"GitHub Actions can be easily configured, especially for environment variables and secrets. The UI is understandable and user-friendly for setting up CI/CD pipelines. I prefer tools like GitLab, where the pipeline starts quickly and is accessible near the commits for easy access. However, many CI/CD tools are interchangeable due to similar features of GitHub Actions and other similar tools."
"We can trigger files manually or automate processes."
"It offers numerous built-in features for pipeline management, release management, and even work item tracking on boards, which makes it a versatile tool that seamlessly integrates with hardware and facilitates optimization."
"I am familiar with the entire life cycle of the product."
"GitHub Actions is valuable for its ease of use and integration."
"I find the automation feature of GitHub Actions most valuable for our building processes. It integrates seamlessly with GitHub, so there's no extra configuration needed, making the building process easy and efficient. GitHub Actions handles scalability well, automatically managing execution infrastructure without requiring additional configurations. We haven't yet explored GitHub Actions' support for AI projects, as we haven't used its AI capabilities."
"Creating workflows in YAML format is straightforward and easy to comprehend. This includes both understanding and writing workflows. Additionally, the downloading aspect for third-party instances can also be easily done. It's worth noting that vulnerability analysis and similar tasks should be part of our automation through data workflows. Furthermore, we can break down our processes step by step, starting from building, then moving on to analysis, testing, and finally deploying in production and the clear environment. All of these tasks can be efficiently managed within this platform."
"It is saving time for developers, which is saving money for the company."
 

Cons

"In our company, procedures or rules need to be completed, which is not a problem with GitHub Actions but with our process."
"The UI could be better."
"The only issue I have faced is with authorization, particularly when configuring the GitHub token correctly."
"We still use Jenkins for some tasks, which suggests there may be areas for improvement in GitHub Actions."
"The minor drawback of GitHub Actions is the management of the dashboard and pipeline runs, which needs improvement. The dashboard for running pipelines could be better."
"In terms of improvements, I think better logging for debugging purposes would be helpful, especially for complex workflows."
"Switching between hosted and self-hosted agents can be a bit complex, as self-hosted agents need to be provisioned in platforms like Azure or AWS."
"My company would want to see some AI features in the tool as it can add value to the product."
"Stability could be improved. I don't know the reason for the instability because there are no logs that help me to understand the problem."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Regarding cost, as an enterprise, we negotiate our license and expenses, so I can't provide a specific rating for that."
"The cost for GitHub Actions may be around $45 dollars per user."
"The product is slightly more expensive than some alternatives."
"Price-wise, GitHub Actions is okay. If I want to use the product's advanced features, then I need to pay the licensing charges for the solution."
"For our basic usage, we didn't have to pay."
"The tool's price is okay and reasonable."
"It's low-priced. Not high, but definitely low."
"It is free and open platform, so I would rate it 1 out of 10."
"Its pricing and licensing are annoying. Every year, I need to renew. If I miss the deadline date, all my processes will stop working. So, I would prefer that I wouldn't need to renew every year, instead have another solution for it. Or, if we could have an enterprise license agreement with the company, then the development team wouldn't need to spend time renewing licenses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
866,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise11
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GitHub Actions?
I have optimized job execution time by running test scripts in parallel and creating multiple pipelines; we've significantly reduced execution times. What could take 50 minutes can be cut down to j...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub Actions?
I would rate pricing a seven, which leans toward the expensive side. However, there is still value for money, and that's why we continue using it.
What needs improvement with GitHub Actions?
Frankly, I cannot imagine something that could be improved in GitHub Actions; there's a lot of capabilities, and the feature set is more advanced than we use. The pricing is high for the advanced s...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Over 2,000 companies worldwide across industries inluding Epic Games, Microsoft, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung, GM, Intel, CitiGroup, Qualcomm, Boeing, Motorola, Qt, and more accelerate their development and enhance their devs’ productivity with Incredibuild.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Google, GitHub and others in Build Automation. Updated: August 2025.
866,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.