Alternatives to GitHub Actions runners
Let’s be honest about comparison pages
Section titled “Let’s be honest about comparison pages”You know what’s a bit silly? When a commercial product writes a “comparison” page about its competitors. It’s inevitably self-promotional, cherry-picks favorable features, and goes out of date the moment it’s published.
So we’re not going to pretend we’re objective here.
Instead, let’s talk about what actually matters when choosing a GitHub Actions runner provider — and what makes RunsOn genuinely different from every other option.
The real question
Section titled “The real question”The question isn’t “which provider has the most checkmarks in a feature table?”
The real question is: where does your code run?
Every third-party runner provider — Buildjet, Ubicloud, Blacksmith, Namespace, Depot, Warpbuild, Cirrus — they’re all great products. Seriously. We benchmark them here and many have excellent performance.
But they all share one thing in common: your code, secrets, and artifacts run on their infrastructure.
For many teams, that’s totally fine. For others — especially those in regulated industries, or with strict security requirements — it’s a non-starter.
What makes RunsOn different
Section titled “What makes RunsOn different”Wait, 100% self-hosted?
Your code never leaves your AWS account
No external control plane. No SaaS dependency. Your source code, secrets, build artifacts, and logs stay inside your VPC. Always.
- ✓ Control plane runs in your AWS
- ✓ Zero third-party access to your code
- ✓ Deploy in any AWS region you choose
- ✓ Pass security audits with confidence
Any instance type?
From 1 to 896 vCPUs
No artificial limits. Pick any EC2 instance type — ARM64, GPU, NVMe storage, memory-optimized, whatever your workload needs.
- ✓ x64, ARM64, GPU runners
- ✓ Linux and Windows
- ✓ Spot instances with auto-fallback
- ✓ Instance types up to 896 vCPUs
Use my AWS credits?
Pay AWS directly for compute
Your CI spend counts toward your AWS committed spend. Use your existing credits, EDPs, or reserved capacity. No per-minute markup from a middleman.
- ✓ Small yearly license (from €300)
- ✓ Compute billed directly by AWS
- ✓ Apply existing AWS credits
- ✓ 90% cheaper than GitHub-hosted
Source code available?
Audit it, modify it
Unlike closed-source SaaS providers, RunsOn’s code is partly open on GitHub. With a Sponsorship license, get full source access and modify it for your needs.
- ✓ Core code on GitHub
- ✓ Full source with Sponsorship license
- ✓ Modify for your internal use
- ✓ No black box
The only fair comparison
Section titled “The only fair comparison”We could make a feature table comparing cache speeds, boot times, and CPU benchmarks. But that changes constantly, and we’d obviously pick metrics where we look good.
Instead, here’s a comparison of things that are structurally unique to RunsOn — things other providers literally cannot offer because of how they’re built:
| Feature | RunsOn | Everyone else |
|---|---|---|
| Code never leaves your VPC | ✓ | ✗ |
| Use your AWS credits for CI | ✓ | ✗ |
| Deploy in your preferred AWS region | ✓ | ✗ |
| No per-minute markup on compute | ✓ | ✗ |
| Source code available for audit | ✓ | ✗ |
| Instance types up to 896 vCPUs | ✓ | ✗ |
| Unlimited concurrency (no extra fee) | ✓ | varies |
But what about performance?
Section titled “But what about performance?”Fair question. We maintain continuously updated benchmarks comparing all major providers:
- GitHub Actions CPU performance — how fast are the CPUs?
- GitHub Actions I/O performance — how fast is disk and network?
Spoiler: RunsOn is competitive on performance while being the only option that keeps your code in your own infrastructure.
When RunsOn might not be for you
Section titled “When RunsOn might not be for you”Let’s be honest about that too:
- You don’t use AWS — RunsOn is AWS-only. If you’re on GCP or Azure, look elsewhere.
- You need macOS runners — AWS Mac instances require 24-hour reservations, making them impractical for on-demand CI.
- You want zero setup — Third-party SaaS providers are plug-and-play. RunsOn takes ~10 minutes to deploy, but it’s still a deployment.
Ready to try it?
Section titled “Ready to try it?”Cheapest GitHub Actions runners in 2025
RunsOn ↗ and Ubicloud ↗ provide GitHub Actions runners at 90% lower cost compared to GitHub-hosted runners. RunsOn deploys directly in your AWS account, allowing you to utilize existing AWS credits for CI/CD. Ubicloud is a Hetzner-based provider that offers GitHub Actions runners at a fraction of the cost of GitHub-hosted runners.
Fastest GitHub Actions runners by CPU performance
For x64 workloads, Namespace ↗, and Cirrus ↗ provide the highest CPU performance, though some of them use Hetzner infrastructure with variable network speeds. For arm64 workloads, RunsOn ↗ delivers the best price/performance ratio while maintaining very good x64 speeds thanks to recent AMD CPUs and Graviton instance types.
For more details, see RunsOn’s continuously updated benchmark of GitHub Actions alternatives.
GitHub Actions runners with GPU support
RunsOn ↗ currently offers the only alternative with GPU support for GitHub Actions. While GitHub does provide GPU runners, they’re limited to enterprise plans and come at premium pricing.
GitHub Actions runners with Windows support
Currently, RunsOn ↗ is one of the sole third-party provider offering Windows runner support for GitHub Actions workflows. Some open-source solutions may also allow you to run Windows runners.
GitHub Actions runners for macOS builds
Multiple third-party services provide macOS runners. However, AWS-based solutions face limitations due to Apple’s mandatory 24-hour host reservation policy, making this option practical only for services that can pool multiple clients’ workloads.
GitHub Actions runners queue time comparison
GitHub’s official runners provide the shortest queue times for standard instances. Alternative providers maintain competitive queue times, typically under 30 seconds.
Best GitHub Actions runners for enterprise
For enterprise-scale deployment with strict security and compliance requirements:
- RunsOn ↗ deploys directly in your AWS infrastructure and can launch many thousands of jobs per day while maintaining your security perimeter
- actions-runner-controller ↗ (ARC) provides Kubernetes-based deployment with full control over your infrastructure
- AWS CodeBuild offers native AWS integration
Each has tradeoffs — ARC offers flexibility but requires Kubernetes expertise, AWS CodeBuild integrates well with AWS services but has higher cost-performance ratios, and RunsOn provides AWS deployment with less operational overhead while keeping data within your infrastructure.
GitHub-hosted runners vs self-hosted alternatives
For quick-starting, short-duration jobs that don’t demand high CPU performance, GitHub’s official runners excel. For CPU-intensive workloads, long-running jobs, or cost-optimization, third-party alternatives typically offer better value and performance.