Dagger vs Woodpecker CI
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?
Dagger
Programmable CI/CD engine that runs pipelines as code
VS
Woodpecker CI
Simple, container-native continuous integration
| Feature | Dagger | Woodpecker CI |
|---|---|---|
| Category | CI/CD & Build | CI/CD & Build |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, kubernetes |
| GitHub stars | ★ 16,141 | ★ 7,650 |
| First released | 2022 | 2019 |
| Replaces | GitHub Actions, CircleCI | Jenkins, CircleCI |
Why pick each one
Choose Dagger if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 16.1k GitHub stars
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Dagger or Woodpecker CI better?
Neither is universally better. Dagger has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Dagger and Woodpecker CI free and open-source?
Yes. Dagger is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Woodpecker CI under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Dagger and Woodpecker CI with Docker?
Dagger: yes. Woodpecker CI: yes.