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.
Harness appears to have several advantages over Semaphore, particularly in popularity, maturity, licensing and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Harness significantly outpaces Semaphore in community adoption with 37,555 stars compared to 1,563 stars on GitHub. This 24.0x difference suggests Harness has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Harness has 3,294 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Harness last updated 1 day ago and Semaphore 23 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 12 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.
Harness provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Semaphore may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.
Semaphorevs
GitLabActivity score
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository
Activity score
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Repository
Sent – A unified API for sending messages across SMS, RCS, and apps like WhatsApp.