buildjet

BuildJet Is Shutting Down. What Should GitHub Actions Teams Do Next?

Feb 9, 2026

BuildJet just announced it is shutting down in a post titled We are shutting down ↗.

Their core reason is straightforward:

“The gap we set out to fill has largely closed, and we’ve decided to focus our efforts elsewhere.”

First, credit where it is due: BuildJet helped validate and grow the market for third-party GitHub Actions runner services.

If you are affected by the shutdown, this post covers:

what this likely says about the market,
how to evaluate your replacement options,
why RunsOn is a strong BuildJet alternative.

Is the GitHub Actions ecosystem consolidating?

Short answer: probably yes.

GitHub has shipped steady improvements in hosted runners, larger runner options, and overall platform capabilities. That naturally compresses the space for thin wrappers around default runner infrastructure.

What remains valuable now is not just “hosted runners, but cheaper.” Teams increasingly need:

stronger workload-specific performance,
deeper control over hardware profiles,
predictable costs at scale,
better caching and Docker build performance,
security and isolation boundaries that match enterprise requirements.

This is exactly where infrastructure-native solutions can still create meaningful value.

What to look for in a BuildJet alternative

If your team is migrating, avoid doing a like-for-like swap only on price. Check these five criteria:

Runner flexibility: Can you choose exact CPU, RAM, architecture, disk, and GPU for each job?
Real cache performance: Not just cache support, but measurable restore/save throughput.
Docker build speed: Native Docker layer caching support for container-heavy pipelines.
Architecture performance: Fast x64 and arm64 options with published benchmark data.
Unit economics at scale: Meaningful savings at your real monthly minute volume, not just toy examples.

Why RunsOn is a strong alternative to BuildJet

For teams that want high performance without giving up control, RunsOn is built for this exact use case.

1. Fully dynamic runner configs

You can choose runner shapes per job with granular control over CPU, RAM, architecture, disk, and GPU availability. This avoids overpaying for one-size-fits-all runners and lets each workflow use the right hardware profile.

2. Faster caching (including large caches)

RunsOn is built to accelerate CI workloads that depend heavily on dependency and build caches. In cache-heavy pipelines, this often becomes one of the biggest contributors to end-to-end runtime.

3. Fast Docker layer caching

If your pipeline builds Docker images frequently, Docker layer caching support is essential. RunsOn provides dedicated options for this, reducing repeated image build time and registry churn.

Docker caching docs

4. Faster x64 and arm64 machines

RunsOn is optimized around machine families and configurations that improve real build performance for common CI workloads on both x64 and arm64.

CPU performance benchmark

5. Up to 10x cheaper economics

For many workloads, especially when using EC2 spot instances correctly, RunsOn can reduce compute costs significantly versus GitHub-hosted runner pricing tiers.

Migration checklist: BuildJet to RunsOn

Most teams can migrate incrementally without redesigning their entire CI system.

Install RunsOn in your AWS account.
Configure the GitHub App for target repositories.
Replace BuildJet runner labels with RunsOn runner labels.
Start with one busy workflow and compare queue time, runtime, and cost.
Roll out by workload type (build, test, release) and tune runner sizing.

Example migration pattern:

# Example only: replace your BuildJet label with a RunsOn label.
runs-on: runs-on=${{ github.run_id }}/runner=4cpu-linux-x64

FAQ: BuildJet shutdown and alternatives

Is BuildJet shutting down?

BuildJet announced its shutdown in its post We are shutting down ↗, citing improvements in GitHub Actions that reduced the gap it originally targeted.

What is a good BuildJet alternative for GitHub Actions?

If you need stronger performance, flexible hardware configuration, and lower CI cost at scale, RunsOn is a strong option. It supports dynamic runner sizing, fast caching, Docker layer caching, arm64/x64 performance tuning, and can be significantly cheaper depending on workload.

Do I need to rewrite all workflows to migrate from BuildJet?

Usually no. Most teams can migrate incrementally by replacing runner labels and validating each pipeline class (build/test/release) one by one.

Final take

BuildJet shutting down does look like a sign of market consolidation around GitHub Actions runner infrastructure.

But consolidation does not mean “only GitHub-hosted runners remain.” It means the bar is higher:

better performance per dollar,
better workload fit,
better operational control.

If your team needs those three outcomes, RunsOn is a practical next step.

Start here: