Learn how Harness and Semaphore differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these ci/cd platforms is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Self-hosted
Repository

Harness appears to have several advantages over Semaphore, particularly in popularity, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Harness significantly outpaces Semaphore in community adoption with 38,286 stars compared to 1,597 stars on GitHub. This 24.0x difference suggests Harness has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Harness has 3,388 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Harness and Semaphore are moving at much the same rate, adding 556 stars and adding 27 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+1.5% vs +1.7%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with Harness last updated 21 hours ago and Semaphore 12 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Golang. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Harness uses SCSS while Semaphore leverages CSS, Python, Ruby, Elixir.
Harness has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to Semaphore which began 2 years ago. This 11.1-year head start suggests Harness may have more mature features and established processes.
Harness is licensed under Apache-2.0, while Semaphore's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in CI/CD Platforms. However, they also have distinct specializations: Harness also focuses on PaaS & Deployment Tools.
Both Harness and Semaphore offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.