When you are evaluating tools for automating your own GitOps-based CI/CD workflow, it is important to keep your requirements and use cases in mind. Tekton deployment is complex and it is not very easy to use. In contrast, Jenkins is more manageable and user-friendly. Integrations and configurability with Tekton are excellent, while with Jenkins they are just ok. Tekton is a complete solution with full CI/CD GitOps workflow coverage while Jenkins includes opinionated CI/CD with additional automation features. Both are tuned for Kubernetes.
Some of Jenkins’s most notable features include automated import of existing software projects, automatic project type detection (Go, Java, Python, etc.), automatic software environment creation, and automatic pipeline creation. When it comes to Kubernetes integrations, Jenkins is fully supported on EKS as well as GKE. In fact, Jenkins was designed for Kubernetes.
I like Tekton because I think it is extremely powerful and allows you to customize entities which can then be reused or shared if needed. Tekton’s modularity also allows for componentization and standardization. With Tekton, it is especially helpful that tasks can be assembled or ordered in any way within pipelines. It is also very appealing to me that the initial installation of Tekton to your Kubernetes cluster only requires one command. Moreso, it is supported on Windows, Mac, and Linux. One thing to note though, is that Tekton involves a learning curve and it requires a solid understanding of CI/CD. Another thing I like about Tekton is its modular dashboard, which provides management and visibility features. However, additional configuration is necessary for that.
Conclusion:
I am convinced that Tekton is a better, more fit solution for managing my operational workflows. The reason being that Tekton has great flexibility and modularity, which makes it much easier for me to assemble complex pipelines instead of rewriting the building blocks each time.
Jenkins and Tekton are prominent competitors in the CI/CD tool category. Jenkins, with its extensive plugin ecosystem and strong community support, holds the advantage for customization. Tekton, however, has the edge in Kubernetes-native environments due to its seamless cloud-native integration.Features: Jenkins provides a massive plugin ecosystem, pipeline integration capabilities, and scalability across various use cases. Tekton excels with its Kubernetes-native design enabling...
When you are evaluating tools for automating your own GitOps-based CI/CD workflow, it is important to keep your requirements and use cases in mind. Tekton deployment is complex and it is not very easy to use. In contrast, Jenkins is more manageable and user-friendly. Integrations and configurability with Tekton are excellent, while with Jenkins they are just ok. Tekton is a complete solution with full CI/CD GitOps workflow coverage while Jenkins includes opinionated CI/CD with additional automation features. Both are tuned for Kubernetes.
Some of Jenkins’s most notable features include automated import of existing software projects, automatic project type detection (Go, Java, Python, etc.), automatic software environment creation, and automatic pipeline creation. When it comes to Kubernetes integrations, Jenkins is fully supported on EKS as well as GKE. In fact, Jenkins was designed for Kubernetes.
I like Tekton because I think it is extremely powerful and allows you to customize entities which can then be reused or shared if needed. Tekton’s modularity also allows for componentization and standardization. With Tekton, it is especially helpful that tasks can be assembled or ordered in any way within pipelines. It is also very appealing to me that the initial installation of Tekton to your Kubernetes cluster only requires one command. Moreso, it is supported on Windows, Mac, and Linux. One thing to note though, is that Tekton involves a learning curve and it requires a solid understanding of CI/CD. Another thing I like about Tekton is its modular dashboard, which provides management and visibility features. However, additional configuration is necessary for that.
Conclusion:
I am convinced that Tekton is a better, more fit solution for managing my operational workflows. The reason being that Tekton has great flexibility and modularity, which makes it much easier for me to assemble complex pipelines instead of rewriting the building blocks each time.