Skip to content
RunsOn - 10x cheaper self-hosted GitHub runners RunsOn
Blog

Alternatives to GitHub Actions runners

GitHub Actions runners are a powerful tool for automating your workflows, but they can be expensive and have limitations. Fortunately, there are several alternatives that offer cheaper and faster runners. In this guide, we’ll explore these alternatives and help you find the best fit for your needs.

Providers

RunsOn

RunsOn ↗ (this site) offers 10x cheaper runners. Fully self-hosted in your own AWS account.

  • Can support instances up to 256cpu.
  • Unlimited concurrency. Fast network speeds.
  • Unlimited and fast caching for dependencies and docker layers.
  • 30% faster x64 performance, 50% faster arm64 CPUs.
  • arm64, x64, GPUs, Windows supported.

Ubicloud

Ubicloud ↗ offers 10x cheaper runners. This is a third-party service. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • Uses slower Hetzner hardware.
  • Max concurrency is 64cpu at any time, unless you pay more. So for busy companies you’ll have to pay extra for the concurrency override.
  • Does not support instances over 16cpu.
  • arm64 and x64 supported, no Mac.

Namespace

Namespace ↗ offers 2x cheaper runners. This is a third-party service. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • x64, arm64, macOS runners.
  • No GPU support.
  • No Windows support.
  • Fast CPUs.

Buildjet

Buildjet ↗ offers runners 2x cheaper. This is a third-party service. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • Does not support instances over 32cpu.
  • Max 64 concurrent AMD vCPUs and 32 concurrent ARM vCPUs. Or pay 300$/month to get 100 more concurrent vCPUs.
  • arm64, x64, no Mac.
  • Network bandwidth can be slow (Hetzner), so you have to use their own caching action to get reasonable speeds.
  • Fast CPUs.

Cirrus

Cirrus ↗ has an alternative pricing model, where you pay a fixed fee to get a dedicated runner for a whole month. You are then limited in concurrency to what you have paid for. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • x64, arm64, macOS runners.
  • No GPU support.
  • No Windows support.
  • Fast CPUs.

Blacksmith

Blacksmith ↗ offers runners 2x cheaper. This is a third-party service. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • Linux arm64, x64 supported.
  • Fast CPUs.

Warpbuild

Warpbuild ↗ offers runners 2x cheaper. This is a third-party service. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • No concurrency limit.
  • arm64, x64, and Mac supported.

Warpbuild uses machines hosted at AWS, or also offers a paid add-on to use your own AWS account. They forbid external benchmarking, so we can not include them in the benchmark.

Depot

Depot ↗ offers runners 2x cheaper. This is a third-party service. They are managing the runners so jobs will execute within their infrastructure.

  • No concurrency limit.
  • arm64, x64, and Mac supported.

Depot uses machines hosted at AWS. They seem to have an option for using your own AWS account (enterprise plan). They forbid external benchmarking, so we can not include them in the benchmark.

GitHub

GitHub ↗ runners have the slowest machines from the bunch, and are the most expensive. But they are integrated into GitHub, and boot the fastest.

  • x64, nacOS, Windows support.
  • arm64 runners are available for public repositories since January 2025. Private repositories can use arm64 runners but they come with outdated CPUs and high pricing. GPU runners are in beta (since June 2024), and limited to Team and Enterprise plans.

Fantastic option for public repositories and small teams with not so many concurrent jobs. Can get expensive pretty quickly.

Benchmarks

For further details about each provider performance, please see our benchmarks for:

Conclusion

When choosing an alternative runner for your GitHub Actions, it’s important to consider the specific needs of your workflows: speed, cost, and compatibility with your existing infrastructure and security requirements.

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, Buildjet ↗, 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 performance while maintaining good x64 speeds.

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 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.