gitbucket vs Gitea
| Tagline | GitHub-compatible self-hosted Git platform with easy install and high extensibility | Painless self-hosted Git service with code review, CI/CD, and package registry |
| Category | Project Management & Kanban | Project Management & Kanban |
| Replaces | Jira, Linear, Trello | Jira, Linear, Trello |
| GitHub stars | 9.4k | 56k |
| Language | Scala | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 3 days ago | today |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
gitbucket
- No native CI/CD system; requires external integration
- JVM runtime adds memory overhead compared to Go-based alternatives
- Package/container registry is not built in
- Advanced project management views (kanban, roadmaps) require plugins
Gitea
- Advanced Jira-style sprint planning, roadmaps, and velocity charts are absent
- No native real-time pair-programming or live collaboration tools
- Gitea Actions ecosystem is smaller than GitHub Actions; fewer third-party action integrations
- Enterprise SSO (SAML, advanced LDAP group sync) requires extra configuration effort
Bottom line
Choose Gitea if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Gitea for the larger community and ecosystem. Gitea has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.