SHSelfHostIndex

Laminar 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?
LA Laminar Lightweight and modular continuous integration service VS WO Woodpecker CI Simple, container-native continuous integration
FeatureLaminarWoodpecker CI
CategoryCI/CD & BuildCI/CD & Build
LicenseGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageC++Go
Setup difficultyMediumMedium
Min. RAM128 MB256 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, sourcedocker, kubernetes
GitHub stars★ 352★ 7,650
First released20162019
ReplacesJenkinsJenkins, CircleCI

Why pick each one

Choose Laminar if…

  • Released under the GPL-3.0 license
  • Written in C++
  • Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Laminar details

Choose Woodpecker CI if…

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

Frequently asked questions

Is Laminar or Woodpecker CI better?

Neither is universally better. Woodpecker CI has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

Are Laminar and Woodpecker CI free and open-source?

Yes. Laminar is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Woodpecker CI under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Laminar and Woodpecker CI with Docker?

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

Related comparisons