Compare Buddy and CircleCI 
- Users report that CircleCI excels in its Automation capabilities, scoring 8.9, while Buddy shines even brighter with a score of 9.5, indicating a more robust automation feature set that users find easier to implement.
- Reviewers mention that CircleCI's Integration options are solid with a score of 8.5, but Buddy outperforms with a score of 9.5, highlighting its extensive range of integrations that users appreciate for streamlining their workflows.
- G2 users indicate that CircleCI's Deployment-Ready Staging feature is effective, scoring 8.7, but Buddy's superior score of 9.6 suggests a more user-friendly and efficient staging process that reviewers find beneficial for their development cycles.
- Users on G2 report that CircleCI's Test Customization is decent with a score of 8.2, while Buddy's score of 9.2 reflects a more flexible and customizable testing environment that users find enhances their testing strategies.
- Reviewers mention that CircleCI's Configuration Management is reliable with a score of 8.8, but Buddy's higher score of 9.4 indicates a more intuitive configuration process that users find easier to navigate and manage.
- Users say that while CircleCI provides good Workflow Visualization with a score of 8.9, Buddy's score of 9.5 suggests a more comprehensive and visually appealing workflow management tool that users find enhances their overall project visibility.
- 1 seat
- 1 runner
- 300 pipeline GB-minutes
- Up to 6,000 build minutes per month
- Largest selection: Build for Docker, Windows, Linux, Arm, and macOS or on your own compute with self-hosted runners
- Build better: Choose the right resource class size (S–L) to go fast and maximize your build minutes
- Ease of setup. - Fast and effective support. - Large customizability. - Minimal changes were required past the initial setup.
Limited Open Source support (only 5 repos) so I have decommissioned this on most of my GitHub repos now in favour of other CI systems like GitHub Actions, Travis CI and Azure DevOps which are my top 3 (in that order, I still use a lot of other CI systems...
Things that I like arranged sorted by usefulness - 1. * Debug via SSH * - This is pretty much the best feature it has, where you can actively debug your builds when there is a error instead of just failing. As the tests are run on their containers, it...
Occasional connectivity issues, nonsense 137 OOM and infrastructure failure which result in build failures with no part on our end. That costs us credits. 137 OOM error happens from time to time to our Node.JS application when their dashboard resources show...
- Ease of setup. - Fast and effective support. - Large customizability. - Minimal changes were required past the initial setup.
Things that I like arranged sorted by usefulness - 1. * Debug via SSH * - This is pretty much the best feature it has, where you can actively debug your builds when there is a error instead of just failing. As the tests are run on their containers, it...
Limited Open Source support (only 5 repos) so I have decommissioned this on most of my GitHub repos now in favour of other CI systems like GitHub Actions, Travis CI and Azure DevOps which are my top 3 (in that order, I still use a lot of other CI systems...
Occasional connectivity issues, nonsense 137 OOM and infrastructure failure which result in build failures with no part on our end. That costs us credits. 137 OOM error happens from time to time to our Node.JS application when their dashboard resources show...
