GitHub Actions vs GitLab CI

Overview

GitHub Actions vs GitLab CI at a glance

A quick comparison across the dimensions that affect cost and developer experience the most.

Pricing

GitHub Actions vs GitLab CI pricing comparison

These two platforms bill for CI in fundamentally different ways. GitHub Actions charges per minute of runner time. GitLab bundles compute minutes into its per-seat subscription. The result: GitHub is cheaper for small teams with light CI; GitLab can be cheaper for larger teams that already pay for seats and stay within their included quota.

GitHub Actions includes 2,000 free minutes/month on Free, 3,000 on Team/Pro, and 50,000 on Enterprise. Overage on Linux is $0.006/min ($0.36/hr). Windows costs 2x and macOS costs 10x the Linux rate. Larger runners (4+ vCPU) are billed separately and cannot use included minutes.

GitLab CI bundles 400 minutes/month on Free, 10,000 on Premium ($29/user/month), and 50,000 on Ultimate. Overage is $10 per 1,000 minutes ($0.01/min). Larger runners consume minutes at a higher "cost factor" (e.g., medium Linux = 2x, large = 3x, macOS M1 = 6x). Self-hosted runners consume zero minutes.

The comparison above uses Linux small runners on both platforms. At this workload (50 builds/day, 8 min each), GitLab Premium absorbs all CI cost into the seat price. GitHub Actions bills $34.80/mo in overage on top of Team seat pricing. One caveat: for a 10-person team, GitLab Premium costs $290/mo in seats alone, while GitHub Team costs $40/mo. The "free CI" only pays off if you need GitLab's other Premium features (code review, compliance, advanced CI).

For teams that exceed their included quota, overage rates diverge. GitHub charges $0.006/min for Linux. GitLab charges $0.01/min. Per minute of Linux compute, GitHub overage is 40% cheaper. But GitLab's higher included quota means you hit overage later.

Configuration

How pipeline config differs: YAML vs YAML

Both platforms use YAML, but the structure is different. GitHub Actions uses a workflow → jobs → steps hierarchy, with each workflow in its own file under .github/workflows/. GitLab CI uses a single .gitlab-ci.yml with a stages → jobs model. In GitLab, jobs within the same stage run in parallel by default. In GitHub, jobs within a workflow run in parallel by default unless you add needs: dependencies.

Here is the same pipeline (lint, test, build) on each platform:

name: CI
on:
  push:
    branches: [main]
  pull_request:

jobs:
  lint:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: npm run lint

  test:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: npm test

  build:
    needs: [lint, test]
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: npm run build

stages:
  - validate
  - build

lint:
  stage: validate
  image: node:20
  script:
    - npm ci
    - npm run lint

test:
  stage: validate
  image: node:20
  script:
    - npm ci
    - npm test

build:
  stage: build
  image: node:20
  script:
    - npm ci
    - npm run build

Notice the structural difference: GitHub Actions uses needs: to create ordering between jobs. GitLab uses stages: to group jobs into sequential phases. Both approaches let you build a DAG, but the default behavior differs. In GitHub, all jobs run in parallel unless constrained. In GitLab, jobs in the same stage run in parallel, but stages run sequentially. GitLab also supports a needs: keyword that breaks stage ordering for individual jobs.

Another key difference: GitHub Actions requires you to specify runs-on: per job (which runner image to use). GitLab lets you specify image: per job (which Docker image to pull). GitLab's shared runners already have Docker installed; you bring the image. GitHub's runners are full VMs; you install what you need via steps or marketplace actions.

Caching

How caching works on each platform

Caching has a direct impact on CI cost because it reduces the time spent installing dependencies. Both platforms support dependency caching, but they implement it differently.

steps:
  - uses: actions/checkout@v4

  - uses: actions/cache@v4
    with:
      path: ~/.npm
      key: npm-${{ hashFiles('**/package-lock.json') }}
      restore-keys: npm-

  - run: npm ci

test:
  image: node:20
  cache:
    key:
      files:
        - package-lock.json
    paths:
      - .npm/
    policy: pull-push
  script:
    - npm ci --cache .npm
    - npm test

GitHub Actions uses a dedicated actions/cache action with a 10 GB per-repository limit. Caches are stored in Azure Blob Storage and are scoped to the repository. Cache entries not accessed for 7 days are evicted.

GitLab CI has caching built into the YAML syntax as a first-class cache: keyword. For shared runners on GitLab.com, caches are stored in a distributed object store. You can set policy: pull on jobs that only read the cache (saving upload time), or policy: pull-push on jobs that update it. GitLab also lets you define multiple cache entries per job and set when: on_success or when: always to control when caches are uploaded.

Runners

How do runners compare?

Both platforms offer hosted runners (managed VMs) and self-hosted runners (your infrastructure). The specs and pricing structure differ.

GitHub Actions charges a flat per-minute rate for each runner size. Larger runners cannot use included free minutes and are always billed. GitHub also offers ARM64 runners at a lower rate ($0.005/min for 2-core Linux ARM).

GitLab uses cost factor multipliers against your compute minute quota. A "medium" (4 vCPU) Linux job consumes 2 compute minutes for every 1 wall-clock minute. This means a 10-minute job on a medium runner costs 20 compute minutes from your quota. Larger runners (large and above) require a Premium or Ultimate subscription.

For self-hosted runners, both platforms let you register your own machines. GitHub Actions was planning to introduce a $0.002/min platform charge for self-hosted runners in private repos (March 2026), but has since postponed that change to re-evaluate. GitLab self-hosted runners consume zero compute minutes and are unlimited on all plans.

Ecosystem

Marketplace actions vs GitLab templates

This is one of the biggest practical differences. GitHub has a massive Actions Marketplace with over 21,000 community-maintained actions. Need to deploy to AWS, publish to npm, send a Slack notification, or set up a specific language toolchain? There is almost certainly a pre-built action for it. You reference actions with uses: owner/action@version.

GitLab takes a different approach. Instead of a marketplace, it offers CI/CD templates and includes. You can include YAML from other files, remote URLs, or GitLab's built-in template library. GitLab also provides Auto DevOps, which generates an entire CI/CD pipeline (build, test, security scan, deploy) from your project's language with zero configuration.

steps:
  - uses: actions/checkout@v4
  - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
    with:
      node-version: 20
      cache: npm
  - run: npm ci
  - run: npm test

include:
  - template: Nodejs.gitlab-ci.yml

# Or manually:
test:
  image: node:20
  script:
    - npm ci
    - npm test

The tradeoff: GitHub's marketplace gives you a huge selection of ready-made integrations, but you are trusting third-party code that runs in your CI environment (supply chain risk). GitLab's approach is more contained since you specify the Docker image and run scripts directly, with reuse handled by YAML includes rather than opaque action bundles.

Platform features

What GitLab includes that GitHub does not (and vice versa)

GitLab positions itself as a complete DevOps platform. Several features that require third-party tools or separate services on GitHub are built into GitLab:

• Container registry. GitLab includes a built-in container registry per project. On GitHub, you use GitHub Packages (GHCR), which works but is a separate service with its own storage billing.

• Security scanning. GitLab Ultimate includes SAST, DAST, dependency scanning, and container scanning as part of the pipeline. On GitHub, you need third-party actions or GitHub Advanced Security (Enterprise-only, extra per-committer fee).

• Environments and deployment tracking. Both platforms support environments, but GitLab's are more tightly integrated with its deployment pipeline, offering rollback, deployment approvals, and environment dashboards out of the box.

• Marketplace ecosystem. GitHub's advantage. With 21,000+ actions, GitHub has a solution for nearly every integration. GitLab's template library is smaller, and most integrations require writing scripts directly in your YAML.

• Child and multi-project pipelines. GitLab supports parent-child pipelines and cross-project pipeline triggers natively. GitHub requires separate workflow files and workflow_dispatch events to achieve similar cross-workflow orchestration.

Decision framework

When to choose GitHub Actions

• Your code is already on GitHub. The tightest integration is with the host. PR checks, branch protection, deployments, and status checks all work without any extra wiring.

• You need a large integration ecosystem. If your CI pipelines rely on many third-party services (AWS, GCP, Vercel, Datadog, Slack, Terraform), the marketplace reduces boilerplate significantly.

• Your team is small and cost-sensitive. GitHub Free includes 2,000 CI minutes/month (5x GitLab Free). For small open-source or side projects, GitHub Actions is free with no seat cost.

• You run open-source projects. GitHub Actions is completely free for public repositories, with no minute limits. GitLab offers reduced cost factors for qualifying open-source projects, but still meters compute.

Decision framework

When to choose GitLab CI

• You want a single platform for the entire DevOps lifecycle. GitLab bundles source control, CI/CD, container registry, security scanning, package registry, and deployment into one product. Fewer tools to integrate, fewer vendor relationships.

• You use self-hosted runners heavily. GitLab self-hosted runners are truly free with no platform charge and no minute metering. If most of your CI runs on your own infrastructure, GitLab's model is simpler.

• You need self-hosted Git. GitLab offers a self-managed edition you can run on your own servers. GitHub Enterprise Server exists but is more expensive. For air-gapped or highly regulated environments, GitLab's self-managed option is more accessible.

• You have complex pipeline orchestration needs. GitLab's parent-child pipelines, multi-project triggers, and rules: system give you more expressive control over when and how pipelines run. GitHub's workflow model is simpler but less flexible for advanced orchestration.

Migration

What to know before switching

Moving CI between these platforms is not a YAML find-and-replace. The pipeline models are different enough that most configs need to be rewritten rather than translated. Here are the most common friction points:

• Secrets management. GitHub stores secrets at the repository, environment, or organization level and injects them as environment variables. GitLab uses CI/CD variables at the project, group, or instance level, with options to mask and protect them per environment. You will need to re-create every secret in the new platform.

• Marketplace actions have no GitLab equivalent. If your GitHub workflows use marketplace actions heavily (e.g., actions/setup-node, aws-actions/configure-aws-credentials), you will need to replace each action with equivalent script: commands in GitLab. This is not hard, but it is tedious.

• Artifact passing between jobs. GitHub uses actions/upload-artifact and actions/download-artifact. GitLab uses the built-in artifacts: keyword with dependencies: to control which jobs receive which artifacts. The concepts map, but the syntax does not.

• Trigger and rules syntax. GitHub uses on: with event types and filters. GitLab uses rules: with if:, changes:, and exists: conditions. GitLab's rules system is more powerful (you can conditionally set variables, change the job stage, or control manual/automatic behavior), but the learning curve is steeper.

GitHub provides an official migration guide from GitLab CI to GitHub Actions that covers the major syntax differences. GitLab documents the reverse in their migration guide from GitHub Actions.