SHSelfHostIndex

act 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?
AC act Run GitHub Actions workflows locally for fast feedback VS WO Woodpecker CI Simple, container-native continuous integration
FeatureactWoodpecker CI
CategoryCI/CD & BuildCI/CD & Build
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM256 MB256 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarydocker, kubernetes
GitHub stars★ 71,417★ 7,650
First released20192019
ReplacesGitHub ActionsJenkins, CircleCI

Why pick each one

Choose act if…

  • Test CI before pushing
  • Saves CI minutes
act details

Choose Woodpecker CI if…

  • Easy to set up
  • Lightweight CI
  • Good Git integrations
Woodpecker CI details

Frequently asked questions

Is act or Woodpecker CI better?

act is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Woodpecker CI if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are act and Woodpecker CI free and open-source?

Yes. act is licensed under MIT and Woodpecker CI under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run act and Woodpecker CI with Docker?

act: check the project docs for container support. Woodpecker CI: yes.

Related comparisons