We performed a comparison between CircleCI and GitLab 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."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."
"Enables us to detect exactly which build failed and why, and to push multiple builds to our production environment at a very fast rate."
"Some of the most valuable features include container-based builds, integration with Bit Bucket and being able to store artifacts."
"It's a stable product."
"The automation workflow in CircleCI related to third-party applications is very good and allows standardization of applications."
"This product is always evolving, and they listen to the customers."
"CI/CD and GitLab scanning are the most valuable features."
"CI/CD is valuable for me."
"The scalability is good."
"It speeds up our development, it's faster, safer, and more convenient."
"CI/CD is very good. The version control system is also good. These are the two features that we use."
"I like GitLab's security and SAS tools."
"Git hosting has an integration with ACD which is why we liked this solution in the first place."
"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."
"The solution’s pricing could be better."
"There needs to be some improvement in the user interface of CircleCI."
"As GitLab is not perfect, what needs improvement in the solution is the Wiki feature of the groups or the repertories because currently, it's not searchable by default. You'll need an indexing service such as Elasticsearch to make it searchable, and that requires too much work, so for me, it's the main feature that should be improved in GitLab. In the next version of the solution, from the top of my head, the documentation could be improved. Besides the Wiki, it would be good if there's documentation that would be automatically generated based on the code repository. In other words, there should be some tutorials from GitLab for developers in the next release."
"I would like to see better integration with project management tools such as Jira."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly. We do most of our operations through the website interface but it could be better."
"We do face issues in our company when we run out of disk space."
"The integration could be slightly better."
"There is room for improvement in GitLab Agents."
"GitLab's UI could be improved."
"I believe there's room for improvement in the advanced features, particularly in enhancing the pipeline functionalities."
CircleCI is ranked 11th in Build Automation with 5 reviews while GitLab is ranked 1st in Build Automation with 70 reviews. CircleCI is rated 6.6, while GitLab is rated 8.6. 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 GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". CircleCI is most compared with TeamCity, Tekton, Jenkins, GitHub Actions and AWS CodePipeline, whereas GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube and Tekton. See our CircleCI vs. GitLab 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.
