Forgejo vs Gitea
Both are alternatives to GitHub. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Gitea vs Forgejo — same comparison, one verdict.
Forgejo and Gitea are closely matched on ownership (99 vs 98) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
Forgejo
TOP PICKCommunity-governed, copyleft self-hosted Git forge.
Forgejo is a lightweight, self-hosted Git forge stewarded by the non-profit Codeberg e.V. It is a soft fork of Gitea and stays close to it in features, offering repositories, pull requests, code review, issue tracking, a package registry, and GitHub-Actions-compatible CI via Forgejo Actions. Its draw is governance and durability: a non-profit steward plus a copyleft license aimed at keeping the software free for users over the long term. A good fit for teams that want a modern forge with independent, community-first governance.
Gitea
Popular, easy-to-run self-hosted Git service.
Gitea is a fast, lightweight Git forge written in Go and released under the permissive MIT license. It provides repository hosting, pull requests, code review, issue tracking, a package registry across many formats, and GitHub-Actions-compatible CI via Gitea Actions. It has the largest community and third-party ecosystem among the open forges and installs in minutes from a single binary or container. It is stewarded by the for-profit CommitGo, Inc., which also offers paid Gitea Enterprise and Gitea Cloud offerings alongside the open-source core.
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.
| Forgejo | Gitea | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 99 | 98 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0-or-later | MIT |
| Pricing | Free / self-host | Free / self-host (optional paid Enterprise and Cloud tiers) |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 2 GB for Forgejo plus PostgreSQL on one box for a 5–20 person team. CI builds need their own machine | 2 GB |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $6–12/mo for a 5–20 user instance on a 2 GB VPS, plus a separate runner box if you use Actions | $12/mo for a team of 10 on a 2 GB VPS |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 30 minutes with docker compose; an afternoon once you add SSH, TLS and an Actions runner | 45 minutes |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | A new major version every quarter. Stable majors get about three and a half months of fixes; the yearly LTS gets 15 months (v15 LTS runs to 15 July 2027). The docs require a full backup before each stable upgrade. | Low. Version upgrades are usually a binary swap. Back up the repo directory and the database together or the backup is useless. |
Forgejo is Macrostack's recommended GitHub alternative, so it's our pick here.
Weighing both against staying on GitHub? Is GitHub free? What it actually costs →
Forgejo
Strengths
- +Non-profit governance (Codeberg e.V.) reduces the risk of future vendor capture
- +Copyleft GPL-3.0+ license (since v9.0) is designed to keep modified versions open
- +Lightweight — runs comfortably on a small VPS or a Raspberry Pi
- +GitHub-Actions-compatible CI via Forgejo Actions; supports OAuth, LDAP, and a package registry
Trade-offs
- −Younger project with a smaller community and third-party ecosystem than Gitea or GitHub
- −As a soft fork of Gitea, its independent identity and long-term divergence are still maturing
- −You own all operations: backups, upgrades, and security patching are your responsibility
- −GPL-3.0+ copyleft terms may not suit organizations that want a permissive license
Gitea
Strengths
- +Largest community and third-party ecosystem of the open forges
- +Permissive MIT license; simple single-binary or container install
- +Very light on resources — comfortable on modest hardware
- +GitHub-Actions-compatible CI, package registry, OAuth/LDAP, and a mature REST API
Trade-offs
- −Steered by a for-profit company (CommitGo) with paid Enterprise/Cloud tiers, a mild governance consideration versus a non-profit steward
- −Self-hosting means you handle backups, upgrades, and security yourself
- −Advanced enterprise features (e.g. SSO auto-scaling runners) are reserved for the paid Enterprise edition
- −Issue/PR and workflow data still need conversion when migrating between platforms
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Forgejo
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and non-profit governance (Codeberg e.V.) reduces the risk of future vendor capture.
Choose Gitea
if largest community and third-party ecosystem of the open forges.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — younger project with a smaller community and third-party ecosystem than Gitea or GitHub, and steered by a for-profit company (CommitGo) with paid Enterprise/Cloud tiers, a mild governance consideration versus a non-profit steward. 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.
Self-hosting Forgejo
2 GB for Forgejo plus PostgreSQL on one box for a 5–20 person team. CI builds need their own machine RAM · 30 minutes with docker compose; an afternoon once you add SSH, TLS and an Actions runner
$6–12/mo for a 5–20 user instance on a 2 GB VPS, plus a separate runner box if you use Actions
Self-hosting Gitea
2 GB RAM · 45 minutes
$12/mo for a team of 10 on a 2 GB VPS
Forgejo vs Gitea — common questions
Is Forgejo a better fit than Gitea for code hosting & git forges?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Forgejo scores 99 to Gitea's 98 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Gitea earns its place on a different axis — largest community and third-party ecosystem of the open forges. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Forgejo keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Gitea 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 Forgejo or Gitea?
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 Forgejo and Gitea both alternatives to GitHub?
Yes — both appear in our GitHub comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off GitHub and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-07. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.