Compare GitHub vs GitLab across repos, PR/MR workflow, CI/CD, security, self-hosting, pricing, and best-fit use cases for teams.
GitHub and GitLab are platforms for hosting Git repositories—shared “homes” for your code where teams can store versions, review changes, and ship software together.
Both products cover the same core jobs:
A simple way to separate them is what each emphasizes by default:
In practice, the overlap is large. GitHub can feel very “platform-like” thanks to GitHub Actions and the Marketplace, while GitLab can be used purely as a Git host without adopting every built-in tool.
This is a practical comparison of how teams actually work in each product: repo basics, code review flow (PRs vs MRs), planning, CI/CD, security, hosting, and pricing trade-offs.
It’s not brand advocacy. There isn’t a universal winner; the right choice depends on your team’s workflow, compliance needs, hosting preferences, and budget.
This guide is for teams choosing (or re-evaluating) a Git hosting platform, including:
If you already know both names but want clarity on what changes day-to-day for developers and managers, read on.
At the base level, both GitHub and GitLab provide hosted Git repositories with the essentials: cloning, branching, tags, and a web UI for browsing code. The real differences show up in access controls, governance guardrails, and how well each handles “real-world” repo sizes.
Both platforms support public and private repositories, plus organization/group structures to manage who can see and change code. When comparing, focus on how your team manages permissions day to day:
Forking and branching are first-class in both, but protections are where teams avoid mistakes.
Evaluate whether you can enforce:
main/masterrelease/* vs feature/*)These guardrails matter more than the UI—they’re what prevent urgent fixes from turning into accidental breakages.
If you store big binaries or ML assets, compare Git LFS support and quotas. For large repos and monorepos, test performance with your reality: repository browsing speed, clone times, and how quickly diffs and file views load in the web interface.
Both can publish releases tied to tags and attach files (installers, binaries, changelogs). Typical workflows include tagging a version, generating release notes, and uploading build outputs—useful for internal tools and customer-facing products.
GitHub and GitLab both support a “propose changes → review → merge” flow, but the naming and a few defaults differ.
Functionally, both represent a set of commits from a branch that you want to merge into a target branch (often main).
Both platforms support required approvals, branch protection, and CODEOWNERS-style rules that automatically request reviews from the right people.
GitHub’s CODEOWNERS integrates tightly with required reviewers, making it common to enforce “at least one approval from each owning team.” GitLab offers similar controls via approval rules and file ownership patterns.
On the conversation side, both offer threaded inline comments and resolve/unresolve flows. GitLab tends to emphasize “threads must be resolved before merge,” while GitHub often relies on review states (Approved / Changes requested) plus status checks.
GitHub PR reviews support suggested changes that an author can apply with a click. GitLab provides suggestions too, and both integrate with formatting tools and bots.
For automation, each can block merging until checks pass:
Review assignment is straightforward in both: choose reviewers, optionally set an assignee, and let CODEOWNERS request the right stakeholders.
Both make it easy to connect work to tracking:
#123)GitLab additionally encourages a tighter issue→MR flow inside the same product, while GitHub often leans on cross-linking between Issues, PRs, and Projects.
A Git hosting platform is only as helpful as its day-to-day coordination tools. Both GitHub and GitLab cover the essentials—issues, planning boards, and lightweight documentation—but they feel different in practice.
GitHub Issues are straightforward and widely familiar. Labels, assignees, milestones, and issue templates (for bugs, features, support requests) make it easy to standardize intake. GitHub’s ecosystem also means many third‑party add-ons assume you’re using GitHub Issues.
GitLab Issues offer similar fundamentals, with strong support for workflows that map closely to development stages. GitLab also tends to encourage keeping more “process” inside the platform, which can reduce tool sprawl for teams that want a single hub.
GitHub Projects (the newer Projects experience) provides flexible Kanban-style boards that can pull in issues and pull requests, with custom fields for status, priority, and more. It’s strong for cross-repo planning and product-style roadmaps.
GitLab Boards are tightly connected to labels, milestones, and iterations, which can be a win if your team already uses those concepts. Many teams like how naturally the board reflects the issue taxonomy they’ve built.
Both support wikis and Markdown documentation stored with your code. GitHub often pushes teams toward keeping docs in-repo (README, /docs) and optionally using a wiki. GitLab includes a built-in wiki that some teams treat as an internal handbook.
GitHub notifications are powerful but can get noisy; teams often rely on careful watch settings and label discipline. GitLab’s notifications are similarly configurable, and many teams appreciate keeping more discussion attached directly to issues and merge requests.
As a rule of thumb: if your collaboration style is “lightweight and flexible,” GitHub often feels simpler. If you prefer “one place for process,” GitLab’s integrated approach may fit better.
CI/CD is where GitHub and GitLab feel most different. Both can build, test, and deploy your code automatically, but they’re organized in distinct ways—and that affects how quickly a team can standardize pipelines.
GitHub Actions is built around workflows (YAML files stored in .github/workflows/) that run on events like pushes, pull requests, tags, or schedules. Jobs run on runners:
A big advantage is the Actions Marketplace: thousands of reusable steps (for building, packaging, deploying, notifications). It can speed up setup, but it also means you should review third-party actions carefully (pin versions, verify publishers).
GitLab CI is centered on a single .gitlab-ci.yml that defines pipelines and stages (build → test → deploy). Like GitHub, it uses runners (GitLab-hosted on some plans, or self-managed).
GitLab often shines on consistency: CI/CD is tightly integrated with environments, deployments, and approvals. GitLab also offers CI templates and include patterns, which makes it easier to share standardized pipeline building blocks across many repositories.
Before choosing, confirm support for:
Even with strong native CI/CD, teams sometimes add external tools for:
If you already rely on a specific deployment platform, prioritize how smoothly each option integrates with it.
Security is where “similar on paper” quickly turns into meaningful differences in day‑to‑day risk. Both GitHub and GitLab offer strong options, but the exact capabilities you get depend heavily on plan tier, add‑ons, and whether you’re using cloud or self‑managed.
When comparing platforms, separate what exists from what you can actually enable on your plan.
Key scanning options to check:
Also confirm whether scans can run on private repositories by default, whether they require a paid tier, and how results are surfaced (PR/MR annotations, dashboards, export options).
Secret scanning is one of the highest-ROI protections because accidents happen: API keys in commits, tokens in build logs, credentials in config files.
Compare:
For regulated teams, the question is less “Can we do secure reviews?” and more “Can we prove we did?”
Check for:
Before deciding, build a must-have checklist and verify each item against the exact tier you’ll buy—avoid assuming features are included by default simply because they exist somewhere in the product.
Where you run your Git platform shapes everything that follows: security posture, admin time, and how quickly you can onboard teams.
GitHub and GitLab both offer managed services. You get accounts, orgs/groups, repositories, and (typically) built-in CI/CD with minimal setup.
Cloud hosting is usually the right default when:
The trade-off is control: you rely on the vendor’s release schedule, maintenance windows, and available regions for data residency.
Both platforms offer self-hosted options. GitLab is often considered more “all-in-one” for self-managed DevOps setups. GitHub’s self-hosted path is typically GitHub Enterprise Server, which many enterprises run behind the firewall.
Self-managed can be a strong fit when:
Running your own instance is not “install and forget.” Plan for:
If you don’t already have an ops platform (or a team that can own it), SaaS often ends up cheaper in real terms—even if license costs look higher.
Self-managed simplifies data residency because you control where the data lives. With SaaS, confirm which regions are supported and whether your compliance team needs contractual guarantees.
CI/CD adds another layer: many organizations use private (self-hosted) runners even with SaaS so builds can run inside a VPN, reach internal services, and avoid exposing credentials.
Self-hosting is usually worth the effort when compliance, isolation, or predictable internal connectivity is a hard requirement—not a “nice to have.” If your main goal is to ship faster with less admin work, start with SaaS and add private runners where needed, then revisit self-managed only if constraints truly demand it.
Pricing is rarely “just” a per-user number. GitHub and GitLab both bundle (and meter) different parts of the workflow—source code hosting, CI/CD compute time, storage, and enterprise controls. A checklist helps you avoid surprises after adoption.
Define which roles count as “seats” in your org. Usually it’s anyone who needs access to private repositories, advanced review controls, or org-level governance.
A practical check: do you have occasional contributors (contractors, designers, security reviewers) who need access for a month or two? If yes, estimate seat churn and how often you’ll add/remove users.
CI is where costs can swing the most.
Checklist questions:
Storage isn’t only Git data:
Teams often underestimate artifact retention. If you keep artifacts for 90–180 days for compliance or debugging, storage can outgrow expectations quickly.
Before deciding “we’ll start free,” verify the limits that affect real work:
If your workflow depends on CI for every commit, a tight CI limit effectively forces an upgrade early.
Even if you’re not “enterprise,” certain controls can be must-haves:
These features can be plan-gated, so treat them as requirements—not “nice to have.”
Use this lightweight template to compare GitHub vs GitLab costs with your numbers:
Team size (paid seats): ____
Seat price / month: ____
CI pipelines per day: ____
Avg minutes per pipeline: ____
Monthly CI minutes = pipelines/day * minutes * 30 = ____
Included CI minutes: ____
Overage rate (if any): ____
Estimated CI overage cost / month: ____
Storage needed (LFS + artifacts + registry): ____ GB
Included storage: ____ GB
Overage rate: ____
Estimated storage overage / month: ____
Self-hosted runners? (Y/N)
If Y: infra cost / month: ____ + ops time: ____ hours
Enterprise requirements (SSO, audit, policies): list = ____
Plan needed: ____
Total estimated monthly cost: ____
Total estimated annual cost: ____
Fill it out twice—once for each platform—and you’ll quickly see whether the “cheaper” plan stays cheaper once CI and storage are included.
Switching between GitHub and GitLab is usually less about moving Git history (that part is straightforward) and more about moving the “stuff around the repo” without breaking how teams work.
Start with a clear inventory so nothing important gets left behind:
.github/workflows/*.yml vs .gitlab-ci.yml, secrets/variables, runners, and environment definitionsInteroperability often hinges on integrations rather than the Git server itself. List anything that touches your current platform:
If any automation posts statuses, comments, or release notes, confirm the equivalent API endpoints and permissions model on the destination.
A practical path is:
After each batch, verify:
Once teams can clone, review, and ship from the new home without workarounds, you’re ready to decommission the old platform.
Day-to-day usability matters as much as big-ticket features. Most teams live in the UI: finding code, reviewing changes, chasing down failures, and keeping work moving with minimal friction.
GitHub tends to feel lighter and more “repo-first,” with straightforward navigation for browsing files, commits, and PR discussions. GitLab is broader—because it’s aiming to be an all-in-one DevOps platform—so the UI can feel denser, especially if your team mostly needs source control and reviews.
Search and navigation are where small differences add up. If your team frequently jumps between repos, branches, and historical context, evaluate how quickly each platform gets you from “I remember there was a change…” to the exact commit, file, or discussion.
Good onboarding reduces tribal knowledge. Both platforms support templates, but in different ways:
CONTRIBUTING, and pull request templates to reinforce habits from day one.Regardless of platform, invest in a clear “getting started” doc and keep it close to the work (e.g., in the repo root or a /docs folder).
Automation is where developer experience becomes measurable: fewer manual steps, fewer broken builds, and more consistent quality.
GitHub’s strength is its ecosystem—apps and integrations for everything from dependency updates to release notes. GitLab often shines when you want more of this packaged and consistent across source, issues, and CI/CD.
Look closely at:
GitHub vs GitLab is a big platform decision—but many teams also want to reduce the time spent going from idea → working code. That’s where Koder.ai can complement either choice.
Koder.ai is a vibe-coding platform that lets you build web, backend, and mobile apps through a chat interface, then export the source code and manage it in GitHub or GitLab like any other project. Teams can use snapshots and rollback during fast iteration, and then rely on their existing PR/MR reviews and CI pipelines for governance once the code lands in the repo.
Notifications are a hidden productivity lever. If alerts are too noisy, developers miss the important ones; if they’re too quiet, reviews and fixes stall.
Test both platforms’ notification controls and mobile apps with real workflows: code review threads, CI failures, mentions, and approvals. The best choice is the one your team can tune to “high signal”—so the right people get the right nudge at the right time, without constant interruption.
Choosing between GitHub and GitLab becomes easier when you start with your team’s constraints and goals.
If you’re a small team (or mainly doing open source), GitHub is often the path of least friction. Contributors likely already have accounts, discovery is strong, and the pull request workflow is a common default.
GitLab can still be a great fit if you want an “all-in-one” tool with built-in CI/CD and planning in the same place, but GitHub tends to win on community reach and contributor familiarity.
For product teams balancing planning, reviews, and shipping, GitLab often appeals because issues, boards, and GitLab CI are tightly integrated and consistent across projects.
GitHub works well too—especially if you already rely on best-in-class add-ons (for example, separate planning tools) and want to standardize on GitHub Actions for automation.
When auditability, governance, and approval controls are deciding factors, GitLab’s “single platform” approach can simplify compliance: fewer moving parts and clearer traceability from issue → code → pipeline → deployment.
That said, GitHub can be a strong enterprise choice when you’re committed to the broader ecosystem and need enterprise controls, policy enforcement, and integrations with existing identity and security tooling.
Platform teams typically care about standardization and compute management. GitLab is often attractive if you want centralized control over runners, templates, and CI/CD conventions across many groups.
GitHub can be equally effective when you standardize on Actions, reusable workflows, and hosted/self-hosted runners—particularly if your developers already live in GitHub and you want the platform team to “meet them there.”
Choosing between GitHub and GitLab is easier when you stop comparing every feature and instead score what your team truly needs.
Start with a short list (5–8 items) of must-haves—requirements that would block adoption. Typical examples:
Then list nice-to-haves (quality-of-life improvements). These should influence preference, not eligibility.
Create a scorecard with weighted criteria so the loudest opinion doesn’t win by default.
A simple template:
Keep it in a shared doc so you can reuse it for future tools.
Run a time-boxed trial (1–2 weeks): validate the must-haves with real workflows.
Pilot one project (2–4 weeks): pick a representative repo and include CI, code review, and release steps.
Estimate total cost: include licenses, compute for CI runners, admin time, and any required add-ons. If you need pricing context, start with /pricing.
If one option fails a must-have, the decision is already made. If both pass, choose the option with the higher scorecard total and the lower operational risk.
They overlap heavily: both host Git repositories, support code review, issues, and CI/CD. The practical difference is emphasis:
Pick based on how much you want “one platform” vs “best-of-breed integrations.”
Compare the daily basics that prevent mistakes and reduce admin overhead:
main).If those fit, the UI differences matter much less.
PRs (GitHub) and MRs (GitLab) are the same concept: a set of commits from a branch proposed to merge into a target branch.
Key workflow differences to test:
Set guardrails that match how your team ships:
release/*, hotfix/*).Then run a small pilot and confirm the rules are hard to bypass (including by admins, if that matters to you).
Start by modeling your pipeline needs:
.github/workflows/, strong ecosystem via the Marketplace, easy reuse via actions and reusable workflows..gitlab-ci.yml with stages, strong built-in integration with environments/deployments, easy standardization via templates and include.If your priority is “many integrations fast,” Actions often wins. If your priority is “consistent pipelines everywhere,” GitLab CI templates can be a big advantage.
Test the “real cost drivers,” not just feature checkboxes:
Do a trial with one representative repo and measure runtime, flakiness, and operational effort.
Check what’s included on the plan you’ll actually buy and how results show up in reviews:
Also confirm you can export or retain security results if you have audit or reporting requirements.
Cloud (SaaS) is usually best when you want minimal admin and fast onboarding. Self-managed is best when control is a hard requirement.
Choose SaaS if you:
Choose self-managed if you:
Beyond per-seat pricing, model the ongoing variables:
A quick spreadsheet with your pipeline volume and artifact retention often reveals the real winner.
Treat migration as moving the “repo + everything around it”:
.github/workflows/*.yml ↔ .gitlab-ci.yml, secrets/variables, runners.Reduce risk by piloting one repo, migrating in batches, and running post-migration checks for permissions, pipelines, and required protections.
Many teams use SaaS plus self-hosted runners to keep builds inside a VPN.