We performed a comparison between CircleCI and Jenkins based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Build Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Enables us to detect exactly which build failed and why, and to push multiple builds to our production environment at a very fast rate."
"It's a stable product."
"Some of the most valuable features include container-based builds, integration with Bit Bucket and being able to store artifacts."
"The automation workflow in CircleCI related to third-party applications is very good and allows standardization of applications."
"The ability to automate the build process in a seamless way and run workflows effortlessly. It supports parallel builds so it can scale well. Also, it covers the basics of any build and integration tool, including email notifications (especially when tests are fixed), project insights, etc."
"The solution offers continuous integration and continuous delivery."
"It is a stable solution."
"Jenkins integrates with multiple tools like Bitbucket and makes life easier. We don't have to write a lot of code since a lot of libraries are available."
"It is easy to use."
"Jenkins is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable aspect of Jenkins is pipeline customization. Jenkins provides a declarative pipeline as well as a scripted pipeline. The scripted pipeline uses a programming language. You can customize it to your needs, so we use Jenkins because other solutions like Travis and Spinnaker don't allow much customization."
"The most valuable feature of Jenkins is its continuous deployment. We can deploy to multi-cluster and multi-regions in the cloud."
"Jenkins is very stable."
"It can scale easily."
"The solution’s pricing could be better."
"There needs to be some improvement in the user interface of CircleCI."
"Billing is a mess."
"Integration with Microsoft Azure is one area for improvement. Azure is growing in its user base, and supports various cloud infrastructure components such as Service Fabric, App Service, etc. Some of Azure’s deployment models (like Kudu) require a steep learning curve, but if CircleCI would come up with such features (deployment to App Service) out of the box, it would be amazing."
"I think an integrated help button, that respected the context of the change/work in hand, would be a worthwhile improvement."
"The bug fix speed is very slow."
"I would like to see even more integrations included in the next release."
"We would like to see the addition of mobile simulators support to this solution, as part of its open-source offering. We currently have to carry out manual testing for these platforms."
"Sometimes, random errors of metadata are not there, which causes delays. These are essentially gaps in the information being passed to the job."
"Support should be provided at no cost, as there is no free support available for any of the free versions."
"Partition security for the workflow of projects is not yet an option."
"Jenkins is an old product, and we encounter performance issues and slow response. Also, some of the plugins are not stable."
CircleCI is ranked 11th in Build Automation with 5 reviews while Jenkins is ranked 2nd in Build Automation with 83 reviews. CircleCI is rated 6.6, while Jenkins is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CircleCI writes "Unhelpful support, unclear billing, and has offers ability to track usage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Jenkins writes "A highly-scalable and stable solution that reduces deployment time and produces a significant return on investment". CircleCI is most compared with TeamCity, Tekton, GitHub Actions, AWS CodeBuild and GoCD, whereas Jenkins is most compared with GitLab, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, IBM Rational Build Forge and Microsoft Azure. See our CircleCI vs. Jenkins report.
See our list of best Build Automation vendors.
We monitor all Build Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.