Buildkite Agent vs act
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted ci/cd & build options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Buildkite Agent
Self-hosted CI/CD agent for your own infrastructure
VS
act
Run GitHub Actions workflows locally for fast feedback
| Feature | Buildkite Agent | act |
|---|---|---|
| Category | CI/CD & Build | CI/CD & Build |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, bare-metal | bare-metal, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,035 | ★ 71,417 |
| First released | 2014 | 2019 |
| Replaces | GitHub Actions, CircleCI | GitHub Actions |
Why pick each one
Choose Buildkite Agent if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (1k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Buildkite Agent or act better?
act is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Buildkite Agent if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Buildkite Agent and act free and open-source?
Yes. Buildkite Agent is licensed under MIT and act under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Buildkite Agent and act with Docker?
Buildkite Agent: yes. act: check the project docs for container support.