GoCD vs. Jellyfish vs. Spinnaker

GoCD is easy to set up. So if you just want to get some pipelines up & running quickly, & they're quite stable, or you can have many pipelines for different needs then GoCD is great. Still, if you only want to have a few pipelines, but with the flexibility to run them with different parameters dynamically, then Jenkins is better.

Incentivized

I really recommend using Jellyfish; if this is something that your company is looking for, definitely give it a try. The Jellyfish team is also very responsive and supportive while updating, changing, or modifying required data. Having metrics from different tools in one place is very useful, especially when you have several engineering teams.

Incentivized

Spinnaker is a strong solution for Continuous Deployment being able to manage enormous environments in an easy way. Even Spinnaker being able to manage environments based on cloud instances (ec2 for example) I believe it is more suitable for containerized environments. Mainly in Kubernetes where it excels as a reliable and safe tool

Incentivized

• Pipeline-as-Code works really well. All our pipelines are defined in yml files, which are checked into SCM.
• The ability to link multiple pipelines together is really cool. Later pipelines can declare a dependency to pick up the build artifacts of earlier ones.
• Agents definition is really great. We can define multiple different kinds of environments to best suit our diverse build systems.

Incentivized

• Integration with JIRA.
• Integration with GitHub.
• Friendly UI.
• Easy to read.

Incentivized

• The immutable way of deployment is one of its greatest advantages.
• We have a strict policy to restock our instances with new images very frequently and this can be done very seamlessly via Spinnaker
• Rollback/ resize of clusters is one of the coolest features of Spinnaker.

Incentivized

• UI can be improved
• Location for settings can be re-arranged
• API for setting up pipeline

Incentivized

• UI and navigation aren't very intuitive and require additional research before being able to use.
• The individual developer metrics are not very useful and make the interface feel cluttered.
• Overall, it takes time for the end-user to truly learn how to use the platform and navigate. There is so much information/data available that although the above is a con, we felt it still made sense, despite the learning curve.

Incentivized

• Integration with external authentication mechanism is not that simple.
• Its configuration is made by a external tool (halyard). Would be better if we could configure it by using its own frontend.
• Its user interface is some times a bit confusing.

Incentivized

I prefer using GoCD compared to Jenkins. The UI makes sense, I like the simplicity to hit the 'Play' button for a straightforward deployment of the 'Play +' if you need to override some settings when deploying whereas Jenkins, you have the whole page for each pipeline. The environment makes sense but can often confuse the user while GoCD simply has a drop-down to select your environment.

Incentivized

GitHub provided a lot of issues for us from an end-user point of view. Overall, Jellyfish is more intuitive; although it does come with its struggles and downfalls, these are something that just takes time to figure out. GitHub was more focused on developing metrics ONLY, and a lot of these metrics were black and white, which resulted in a failure to analyze the bigger picture. GitHub's metrics were mostly unreliable. After using Jellyfish for the past 2ish years, we love it so much better. Despite the learning curve to understand how to use the interface, overall, this provides so much more insights and analytics in a way that allows us to be strategic with our business goals.

Incentivized

• Pipeline Expressiveness • Self-Service/Override • Visibility of Client Teams • Operability of Client Teams - • High-Quality Integrations (AWS, IHP, Google) • Extensibility – (Ability to add code) • The maturity of Deployment Process • Speed/Ease of Onboarding

Incentivized

• ROI has been good since it's open source
• Settings.xml need to be backed up periodically. It contains all the settings for your pipelines! We accidentally deleted before and we have to restore and re-create several missing pipelines
• More straight forward use of API and allows filtering e.g., pull all pipelines triggered after this date

Incentivized

• Easy setup and takes time to learn, but overall easy to use one you get the hang of it.
• Strategic roadmapping.
• Return on Investment increased.

Incentivized

• It's open source!
• RPM based deployments can be scripted at Maven file itself , so very easy!
• RPM based deployments bundles all code and configs together, so awesome!

Incentivized