SHSelfHostIndex

Tekton 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?
TE Tekton Cloud-native CI/CD building blocks for Kubernetes VS WO Woodpecker CI Simple, container-native continuous integration
FeatureTektonWoodpecker CI
CategoryCI/CD & BuildCI/CD & Build
LicenseApache-2.0Apache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM1,024 MB256 MB
Deploymentkubernetes, helmdocker, kubernetes
GitHub stars★ 9,030★ 7,650
First released20182019
ReplacesJenkins, GitHub ActionsJenkins, CircleCI

Why pick each one

Choose Tekton if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 9k GitHub stars
  • Written in Go
Tekton details

Choose Woodpecker CI if…

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

Frequently asked questions

Is Tekton or Woodpecker CI better?

Neither is universally better. Tekton has the larger community, while Woodpecker CI is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are Tekton and Woodpecker CI free and open-source?

Yes. Tekton 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 Tekton and Woodpecker CI with Docker?

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

Related comparisons