GitBucket vs Forgejo Runner
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted git hosting & forges options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
GitBucket
Git platform powered by Scala with GitHub-like UI
VS
Forgejo Runner
CI runner for Forgejo Actions
| Feature | GitBucket | Forgejo Runner |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Git Hosting & Forges | Git Hosting & Forges |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Scala | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 9,387 | ★ 300 |
| First released | 2013 | 2023 |
| Replaces | GitHub | GitHub Actions |
Why pick each one
Choose GitBucket if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 9.4k GitHub stars
Choose Forgejo Runner if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is GitBucket or Forgejo Runner better?
GitBucket is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Forgejo Runner if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are GitBucket and Forgejo Runner free and open-source?
Yes. GitBucket is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Forgejo Runner under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run GitBucket and Forgejo Runner with Docker?
GitBucket: yes. Forgejo Runner: yes.