Woodpecker CI vs Forgejo / Gitea Actions
Both are alternatives to GitHub Actions. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Forgejo / Gitea Actions vs Woodpecker CI — same comparison, one verdict.
Woodpecker CI and Forgejo / Gitea Actions are closely matched on ownership (93 vs 91) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
Woodpecker CI
TOP PICKA small, container-native CI server you can run on one box.
Woodpecker is a community fork of Drone that stayed Apache-2.0 after Drone's licence changed. Every pipeline step is a container, the config is a single YAML file, and the whole server is one Go binary plus an agent — it will run comfortably on hardware you would otherwise consider too small for CI. It plugs into GitHub, GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo and Bitbucket, so you can keep hosting code where it is and simply move the build minutes onto your own machine. Of everything here it is the least ceremony for the most control.
Forgejo / Gitea Actions
Actions-compatible CI inside a self-hosted forge.
Forgejo and Gitea both ship a CI runner that speaks the GitHub Actions workflow format, so a large share of existing `.github/workflows` files run unchanged — including many marketplace actions, which are just repositories. That compatibility is the point: it is the only option here where migration can be a copy rather than a rewrite. The trade is that you are adopting a whole forge, not just a build system, so it suits teams already considering moving off GitHub entirely rather than teams that only want cheaper minutes.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| Woodpecker CI | Forgejo / Gitea Actions | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 93 | 91 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT (Gitea) / GPL-3.0 (Forgejo) |
| Pricing | Free and open source. You pay only for the machine it runs on. | Free and open source; self-hosted on your own hardware. |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 2 GB server + whatever the builds need on the agents | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $12/mo server plus agent capacity — often the biggest saving on this list, because CI minutes are billed brutally | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 2 hours | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Low for the server. The agents are where the work is: disk fills with Docker layers, and caches need pruning. | — |
Woodpecker CI is Macrostack's recommended GitHub Actions alternative, so it's our pick here.
Weighing both against staying on GitHub Actions? Is GitHub Actions free? What it actually costs →
Woodpecker CI
Strengths
- +Genuinely Apache-2.0 with no enterprise carve-out
- +Container-per-step model — the pipeline is portable by construction
- +Runs against GitHub, GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo and Bitbucket
- +Light enough for a small VPS; no database cluster required
Trade-offs
- −Small ecosystem — no marketplace of ready-made actions
- −You own the runner: patching, disk space and caching are yours
- −No hosted option, so there is nobody to page at 3am
- −Windows and macOS builds need machines you supply
Forgejo / Gitea Actions
Strengths
- +Workflow syntax is Actions-compatible — existing YAML often runs as-is
- +Many GitHub marketplace actions work because they are just repos
- +Comes with the git host, issues and packages in one binary
- +Forgejo is GPL-3.0 and community-governed under Codeberg
Trade-offs
- −Adopting it sensibly means moving your repositories too
- −Compatibility is high but not total — GitHub-specific contexts break
- −Smaller runner ecosystem; scaling out is manual work
- −Two similar projects with a contentious shared history to understand
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Woodpecker CI
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and genuinely Apache-2.0 with no enterprise carve-out.
Choose Forgejo / Gitea Actions
if workflow syntax is Actions-compatible — existing YAML often runs as-is.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — small ecosystem — no marketplace of ready-made actions, and adopting it sensibly means moving your repositories too. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
Woodpecker CI vs Forgejo / Gitea Actions — common questions
Is Woodpecker CI a better fit than Forgejo / Gitea Actions for ci/cd & build automation?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Woodpecker CI scores 93 to Forgejo / Gitea Actions's 91 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Forgejo / Gitea Actions earns its place on a different axis — workflow syntax is Actions-compatible — existing YAML often runs as-is. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Woodpecker CI keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Forgejo / Gitea Actions is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host Woodpecker CI or Forgejo / Gitea Actions?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are Woodpecker CI and Forgejo / Gitea Actions both alternatives to GitHub Actions?
Yes — both appear in our GitHub Actions comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off GitHub Actions and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-30. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.