Why do some projects still use Travis CI or Circle CI instead of GitHub Actions?

When comparing CI tools, Circle CI often provides better diagnostics and test aggregation features, which is a big draw for teams needing that data. Each CI tool has its strengths and weaknesses, so the best choice can really vary by project.

It really boils down to personal preference and specific project needs. Different tools come with different integrations, pricing models, and support for various tech stacks. Some companies might also be tied to their existing processes or tools. While GitHub Actions is solid, tools like Jenkins or Circle CI may still shine in certain areas.

A lot of it comes down to the saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' GitHub Actions is relatively new compared to Travis CI and Circle CI. Some teams may have lingering contracts with these services or prefer how they operate. Plus, not every team wants to feel locked-in to one service, especially when options like Cil or Jenkins might fit their needs better. Personally, I like using CI/CD tooling that runs on my infrastructure to avoid the quirks of GitHub Actions' pricing model, which can feel punishing sometimes.

Inertia plays a big role, but there are also security and UX concerns. For instance, GitHub Actions has had some issues with security flaws and user experience could be better, like approval requirements for certain steps. Meanwhile, Circle CI has some solid features for test reporting and diagnostics that teams might prefer, depending on their project needs.