Head-to-head · checked November 2026
GitHub Actions vs Jenkins
For a team starting today, GitHub Actions is less work: nothing to install or patch. Jenkins still fits teams that must keep everything on their own network and already have people who run it well.
| GitHub Actions | Jenkins | |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Hosted by GitHub; self-hosted runners optional. | You host the controller and agents. |
| Configuration | YAML workflows and actions. | Jenkinsfile in declarative or scripted Groovy, plus plugins. |
| Maintenance | None on hosted runners. | Controller upgrades, plugin compatibility, agent images and security advisories. |
| Cost model | Plan-included minutes, then per minute, for private repositories. | Free software; you pay for servers and the time to run them. |
| Migration cost | GitHub Actions Importer can draft workflows from Jenkins pipelines. | Moving to Jenkins means rewriting workflows and standing up servers. |
Count the hours, not only the licence
Jenkins costs nothing to license, and it is easy to undercount what it does cost: the servers, the upgrades, the plugin that broke after one, and the person who knows how it all fits. Put those hours next to an Actions bill before deciding.
Which suits whom
Pick GitHub Actions if
- You want to stop running CI servers.
- Your code is on GitHub.
Pick Jenkins if
- Everything must stay on your own network.
- You have a working Jenkins and the people to keep it that way.
Staying on GitHub Actions? Try Graphide CI
Leaving Jenkins for GitHub Actions and worried hosted runners will be slower than your warm agents? Graphide CI keeps your new Actions workflows and runs x64 Linux jobs with caches already on the runner.
How Graphide CI works · Faster GitHub Actions runners compared
More comparisons
Get an email when these comparisons change
Prices, limits and features move. We update the rows when vendors do, and tell you what changed.