My advice for others looking into using Harness is to use AI capabilities, create pipelines, and then use it to deploy. Harness is a good tool. I would rate this review a nine out of ten.
My advice for organizations considering Harness is to evaluate the complexity of their workflows. For smaller teams with simple deployment needs, lightweight tools may suffice, but larger teams with multi-environment releases would benefit greatly from Harness's operational capabilities. I would rate Harness an eight overall. I chose eight because it is a very good tool, although it might not fit every organization's needs perfectly. My advice for organizations considering Harness is to evaluate the complexity of their deployment workflows and engineering operations first. For teams with simple deployment needs, lightweight CI/CD tools may suffice, while companies with large engineering teams and complex deployment processes could experience at least one point five times improvement in operational efficiency with Harness. The platform is very valuable for deployment automation and centralized DevOps, but its complexity during the initial learning phase and steep pricing make it an eight instead of a ten. Harness is a great tool, but the initial complexity and cost can be challenging for those with minimal CI/CD needs, while it can be a game-changer for larger engineering teams requiring heavy deployment operations.
I appreciate that Harness provides good visibility into pipeline execution and deployment status, and I appreciate how it simplifies the complex CI/CD workflows. Its automation features help reduce human errors during releases. The pricing is good, but it can be reduced if there is a bigger team, and it should have a good plan. Using Harness, I now need fewer employees. Harness is good to use; I have to look after the deployments as well. I give this review a rating of 9.
My advice for others looking into using Harness is to perform a trade-off analysis between GitHub Actions, GitHub CI, CircleCI, and conduct a cost analysis. Harness is still new to the market and is cheaper, but Jenkins is completely open source and requires hosting, while Harness provides enterprise support for us to work with. Pros and cons need to be evaluated before adopting Harness. I am very happy with my current usage of Harness and would rate this review an eight out of ten.
Site Reliability Engineer 2 at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Jan 5, 2026
I find myself relying on two very important features more often than the others: intelligent continuous deployment and auto rollback. These two are very impactful, as the auto rollback significantly reduces the blast radius of bad deployments and minimizes downtime. Cloud cost management is a bonus feature to add to the list, as Harness offers cost visibility for cloud resources, which helps our team optimize cloud spend tied to deployment pipelines. If you run Kubernetes or a cloud-based production system, you should consider using Harness. It is great for frequent releases with real production risks, managing MTTR, rollback, and governance, all of which are important when working in IT. Harness keeps CI/CD responsibilities clear, avoiding overlapping responsibility and complexity. While it has a powerful offering, be aware of the steeper learning curve; hence, allocate time for training, documentation, and internal knowledge sharing. You will find good documentation for Harness to help you learn. The cost and budget are reasonable, and its scalability is great. Therefore, investing in it is worthwhile to deliver the most value for production-grade deployments. Start small, invest in observability, standardize pipelines, and measure MTTR and incident reduction to justify your costs. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten overall.
For others looking to use Harness, they should first evaluate their own organization to determine if Harness really solves all their use cases. Harness is somewhat use-case dependent, meaning while it definitely lacks in pipeline as code, it is still able to provide a pipeline-based studio, which is something that is unique to the platform itself. It could be a great performance booster for teams that are working heavily with other aspects of the application stack and not focused completely on pipelines. My overall rating of Harness is 6 out of 10.
I am working with the cloud version with AWS and Harness. I would recommend Harness as a solution to others if they are using infrastructure where load balancers and target groups are in the picture. Harness is very reliable. We can also deploy Kubernetes applications to Harness itself. In Kubernetes, compared to EC2, whenever we deploy the latest JAR file on EC2, we have to reboot the server for the latest change to get updated. In Kubernetes, whenever we deploy, we have to delete the pods, and new pods will come into picture with the latest update. Harness takes care of it; whenever we deploy Kubernetes-based microservices applications, it will terminate the pods and spin up new pods with the latest version. The same Canary process is followed. For my requirement, I am satisfied with what they are providing us in terms of features functionality. I rate Harness 9 out of 10.
Senior Software Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Apr 28, 2025
I rate Harness eight out of ten. Users should consider the need for deploying multiple components to multiple environments and the potential issues when doing so.
I would recommend Harness as it's better than uDeploy in terms of ease of use and functionality. It supports multiple pipelines, multiple environments, different service configurations, and has a user-friendly dashboard. I's rate the solution eight out of ten.
I recommend Harness to other users. As part of the engineering team, my role includes certifying products for applications, and Harness has proven suitable for our needs. I suggest adopting it based on usage requirements. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Engineering Technical Leader Sre (Cloud/Kubernetes Security) at Cisco
Real User
Top 10
Apr 5, 2024
The pricing aspect needs to be considered first based on your requirements. Secondly, it might be suitable if your team is technically proficient in tools like Argo CD. However, if you have a complex infrastructure and limited personnel to manage it, Harness would be a better choice. We integrated Harness with Kubernetes, and the setup didn't significantly affect our existing infrastructure. Learning to use Harness for basic tasks is relatively easy, but mastering complex operations may require time and team support. I rate it a seven out of ten.
Harness offers a comprehensive toolset for automating deployment processes and enhancing software update efficiency. It's lauded for its CI/CD capabilities, feature flagging, and real-time deployment monitoring. Key features include an intuitive UI, secret management, and robust rollback functionalities, all contributing to improved productivity and reduced errors in DevOps environments.
My advice for others looking into using Harness is to use AI capabilities, create pipelines, and then use it to deploy. Harness is a good tool. I would rate this review a nine out of ten.
My advice for organizations considering Harness is to evaluate the complexity of their workflows. For smaller teams with simple deployment needs, lightweight tools may suffice, but larger teams with multi-environment releases would benefit greatly from Harness's operational capabilities. I would rate Harness an eight overall. I chose eight because it is a very good tool, although it might not fit every organization's needs perfectly. My advice for organizations considering Harness is to evaluate the complexity of their deployment workflows and engineering operations first. For teams with simple deployment needs, lightweight CI/CD tools may suffice, while companies with large engineering teams and complex deployment processes could experience at least one point five times improvement in operational efficiency with Harness. The platform is very valuable for deployment automation and centralized DevOps, but its complexity during the initial learning phase and steep pricing make it an eight instead of a ten. Harness is a great tool, but the initial complexity and cost can be challenging for those with minimal CI/CD needs, while it can be a game-changer for larger engineering teams requiring heavy deployment operations.
I appreciate that Harness provides good visibility into pipeline execution and deployment status, and I appreciate how it simplifies the complex CI/CD workflows. Its automation features help reduce human errors during releases. The pricing is good, but it can be reduced if there is a bigger team, and it should have a good plan. Using Harness, I now need fewer employees. Harness is good to use; I have to look after the deployments as well. I give this review a rating of 9.
My advice for others looking into using Harness is to perform a trade-off analysis between GitHub Actions, GitHub CI, CircleCI, and conduct a cost analysis. Harness is still new to the market and is cheaper, but Jenkins is completely open source and requires hosting, while Harness provides enterprise support for us to work with. Pros and cons need to be evaluated before adopting Harness. I am very happy with my current usage of Harness and would rate this review an eight out of ten.
I find myself relying on two very important features more often than the others: intelligent continuous deployment and auto rollback. These two are very impactful, as the auto rollback significantly reduces the blast radius of bad deployments and minimizes downtime. Cloud cost management is a bonus feature to add to the list, as Harness offers cost visibility for cloud resources, which helps our team optimize cloud spend tied to deployment pipelines. If you run Kubernetes or a cloud-based production system, you should consider using Harness. It is great for frequent releases with real production risks, managing MTTR, rollback, and governance, all of which are important when working in IT. Harness keeps CI/CD responsibilities clear, avoiding overlapping responsibility and complexity. While it has a powerful offering, be aware of the steeper learning curve; hence, allocate time for training, documentation, and internal knowledge sharing. You will find good documentation for Harness to help you learn. The cost and budget are reasonable, and its scalability is great. Therefore, investing in it is worthwhile to deliver the most value for production-grade deployments. Start small, invest in observability, standardize pipelines, and measure MTTR and incident reduction to justify your costs. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten overall.
For others looking to use Harness, they should first evaluate their own organization to determine if Harness really solves all their use cases. Harness is somewhat use-case dependent, meaning while it definitely lacks in pipeline as code, it is still able to provide a pipeline-based studio, which is something that is unique to the platform itself. It could be a great performance booster for teams that are working heavily with other aspects of the application stack and not focused completely on pipelines. My overall rating of Harness is 6 out of 10.
I am working with the cloud version with AWS and Harness. I would recommend Harness as a solution to others if they are using infrastructure where load balancers and target groups are in the picture. Harness is very reliable. We can also deploy Kubernetes applications to Harness itself. In Kubernetes, compared to EC2, whenever we deploy the latest JAR file on EC2, we have to reboot the server for the latest change to get updated. In Kubernetes, whenever we deploy, we have to delete the pods, and new pods will come into picture with the latest update. Harness takes care of it; whenever we deploy Kubernetes-based microservices applications, it will terminate the pods and spin up new pods with the latest version. The same Canary process is followed. For my requirement, I am satisfied with what they are providing us in terms of features functionality. I rate Harness 9 out of 10.
I rate Harness eight out of ten. Users should consider the need for deploying multiple components to multiple environments and the potential issues when doing so.
I would recommend Harness as it's better than uDeploy in terms of ease of use and functionality. It supports multiple pipelines, multiple environments, different service configurations, and has a user-friendly dashboard. I's rate the solution eight out of ten.
I recommend Harness to other users. As part of the engineering team, my role includes certifying products for applications, and Harness has proven suitable for our needs. I suggest adopting it based on usage requirements. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
The pricing aspect needs to be considered first based on your requirements. Secondly, it might be suitable if your team is technically proficient in tools like Argo CD. However, if you have a complex infrastructure and limited personnel to manage it, Harness would be a better choice. We integrated Harness with Kubernetes, and the setup didn't significantly affect our existing infrastructure. Learning to use Harness for basic tasks is relatively easy, but mastering complex operations may require time and team support. I rate it a seven out of ten.