The 2026 CI/CD Migration Report

Who is moving off Jenkins, CircleCI, Travis, and GitLab to GitHub Actions in 2026, the drivers, the effort, and what the bill does next.

Executive summary

The center of gravity in CI has shifted. GitHub Actions has become the default place new pipelines are written, and 2026 is the year a large cohort of teams finishes moving their old ones too. The migrations come off four main sources, Jenkins, CircleCI, Travis, and GitLab CI, and while each has its own reason for leaving, they converge on the same destination: pipelines that live next to the code, in the platform the rest of the workflow already uses.

The drivers are consistent across the cohort. Maintenance burden tops the list for Jenkins refugees, per-minute cost tops it for CircleCI and Travis, and tool consolidation drives teams already standardizing on GitHub. These are not competing explanations so much as different entry points into the same decision: the legacy platform costs too much, in money or in operational time, to keep running once a credible alternative sits where the code already lives.

The honest part of any migration story is effort, and this report is direct about it: a real estate of legacy pipelines takes weeks, not days. The number scales with how imperative the old configuration was. Declarative pipelines port quickly; imperative ones, full of scripting and shared libraries, have to be rebuilt as logic rather than translated as syntax. Budgeting weeks and migrating the highest-traffic pipelines first is what separates a smooth move from a stalled one.

The after picture is favorable, but only if the move is paired with the right runner layer. Migrating to Actions and then self-hosting your own runners recreates much of the maintenance burden the team just escaped. Pairing the move with managed runners that cost materially less per minute than GitHub-hosted, with no fleet to operate, captures the cost saving without rebuilding the operational weight that pushed the team off Jenkins in the first place.

There is also a reliability dividend that teams rarely anticipate. Legacy setups dealt with transient failures the manual way: someone hit re-run. After migrating, teams that adopt self-healing runners see those mechanical failures retried automatically, and the perceived reliability jump is large precisely because it removes the most frequent category of red builds without anyone touching a test. Cost and reliability gains land on top of the consolidation simplification, which is why the migration is rarely just a CI swap.

Jenkins is the largest single source of migrations

The biggest share of teams moving to Actions in 2026 are leaving self-hosted Jenkins, 41 percent of the modeled cohort, and the reason is rarely the tool itself. It is the operational weight around it: plugin upgrades that break each other, controller maintenance, agent fleets that need patching and scaling, and the institutional knowledge that walks out the door when the one person who understood the setup leaves.

Moving to Actions removes the control plane entirely. There is no controller to maintain, no plugin matrix to keep compatible, and no bespoke server that becomes a single point of failure. The pipeline definition lives next to the code and runs on a platform the org already operates, which collapses a category of work that a Jenkins estate demanded continuously.

But the agent fleet is the other half of the burden, and migrating to Actions alone does not remove it if the team then self-hosts its own runners. Pairing the move with managed runners removes the agent fleet too, the patching, the scaling, the image maintenance, which is precisely the burden that pushed these teams to migrate in the first place. A migration that swaps a Jenkins controller for a self-hosted runner fleet has solved half the problem and recreated the other half.

• Jenkins is the largest single source at 41% of the modeled migration cohort.
• The pain is operational weight (plugins, controller, agent fleet), not the tool itself.
• Actions removes the control plane; managed runners remove the agent fleet, which self-hosting recreates.

Cost is the driver that closes the deal

Maintenance burden gets teams looking and per-minute cost gets them moving. In the drivers model, maintenance leads at 38 percent and per-minute cost follows at 29 percent, and the two play different roles: the first is why a team starts evaluating, the second is why it commits. A migration justified on operational relief alone is easy to defer; one with a hard cost saving attached gets scheduled.

CircleCI and Travis refugees in particular cite spend as the primary driver, because their per-minute rates are what made the legacy platform painful in the first place. For these teams the move only pays off if the destination is genuinely cheaper, and GitHub-hosted runners alone are not always a large enough drop to justify the migration effort on cost grounds.

Self-hosting your own Actions runners gets you part of the way on cost but brings back the fleet to operate. Managed runners that are materially cheaper per minute than GitHub-hosted, modeling around 0.0025 against the 0.008 Linux hosted rate, capture the saving without recreating the maintenance burden the team just escaped. The cost-after chart shows the managed line landing well below both the legacy estate and hosted Actions, which is what turns a cost-driven evaluation into a committed migration.

Effort scales with how imperative the old config was

Declarative pipelines port quickly; imperative ones do not. Travis and CircleCI configs are largely declarative and map to Actions workflows with modest rework, which is why they sit at the low end of the effort model. The structure of the pipeline survives the move; only the syntax changes, and syntax translation is fast.

Jenkinsfiles full of Groovy and shared libraries sit at the high end, 2.6 times the Travis baseline in the model, because logic, not just syntax, has to be rebuilt. An imperative Jenkins pipeline frequently encodes business logic, conditional branching, and custom integrations in script that has no direct Actions equivalent, so the migration is a rewrite of behavior rather than a translation of configuration.

Budgeting weeks rather than days, and migrating the highest-traffic pipelines first, is what separates a smooth move from a stalled one. The high-traffic pipelines deliver the most cost and reliability benefit per pipeline migrated, so doing them first front-loads the payoff and builds the case for finishing the long tail. Teams that start with the obscure, rarely-run pipelines burn effort for little return and lose momentum.

• Effort scales with config style: Travis and CircleCI are declarative and port fast.
• Jenkinsfiles model at 2.6x the Travis baseline because Groovy logic must be rebuilt, not translated.
• Sequence high-traffic pipelines first to front-load the payoff and keep momentum.

The reliability bump is mostly auto-healed transient failures

Legacy setups dealt with transient failures the manual way: someone noticed a red build, judged it spurious, and hit re-run. That manual recovery was so routine that teams stopped seeing it as a reliability problem at all; it was just the cost of running CI, paid in interruptions and context switches several times a week.

After migrating, teams that adopt self-healing runners see those mechanical failures, registry timeouts, network blips, out-of-memory kills, retried automatically on a fresh environment before a human sees the red check. The perceived reliability jump is large precisely because it removes the most frequent category of red builds, and it does so without touching a single test, because the failures were never test problems to begin with.

This is a benefit teams rarely budget for because they had normalized the manual re-run. The migration is the moment to capture it, since the team is already changing its runner layer, and adding self-healing at that point costs nothing extra in effort while removing a category of friction the team had simply learned to tolerate. The reliability dividend is real, but it comes from the runner layer choice, not from Actions itself.

Consolidation compounds the win

Teams already standardizing on GitHub get a second-order benefit from migration: pipelines, code review, packages, and identity live in one place. That consolidation shrinks the integration surface, the number of tokens and webhooks and service accounts wiring separate systems together, and the number of tools the organization pays for, secures, and trains people on.

The move to Actions is therefore rarely just a CI swap; it is usually the last step in consolidating the delivery toolchain. The cost and reliability gains from the runner layer land on top of a simplification that has its own value: fewer vendors, fewer integration points to break, fewer places a secret can leak, and one permission model instead of several.

This compounding is why migrations that look marginal on a pure CI cost comparison still go ahead. The CI saving alone might not justify the effort, but the CI saving plus the reliability dividend plus the consolidation simplification together make a clear case. The full value of the move is the sum of all three, and reading any one in isolation understates why 2026 is the year the cohort finishes moving.

The runner layer decides whether the migration actually pays off

The cost-after chart makes the central decision explicit. The legacy self-hosted Jenkins estate models highest, hosted Actions is a meaningful drop, self-hosted Actions runners drop further on per-minute compute, and managed runners land lowest while removing the fleet entirely. The gap between the self-hosted Actions line and the managed line is small on the chart but large in practice, because the chart shows compute cost and not the engineering time self-hosting consumes.

That hidden engineering time is the trap. A team that migrates to Actions and self-hosts its runners to chase the lowest compute line has rebuilt an agent fleet to patch, scale, secure, and clean up, which is the exact operational burden it left Jenkins to escape. The compute number looks good on the spreadsheet while the operational cost reappears off the spreadsheet.

Managed runners resolve this by pricing close to self-hosted compute, roughly 69% below GitHub-hosted, while removing the idle capacity and the operations entirely. For a team migrating specifically to escape maintenance burden, the managed line is the only one that delivers the cost saving without reintroducing the problem, which is why the runner-layer choice, not the migration to Actions itself, determines whether the move pays off.

Per-job isolation is a security upgrade that comes free with the move

A migration is also a chance to fix the security posture of the old setup. Legacy Jenkins agents and long-lived self-hosted runners frequently carry persistent state and long-lived credentials between jobs, which means one job can observe or poison the next and a leaked static key stays valuable indefinitely. That was the norm for years, and most legacy estates still run it.

Moving to ephemeral, single-use runner environments closes a class of incident at the architectural level. A fresh environment per job means no state bleeds between runs, a poisoned cache cannot persist, and a compromised dependency does not survive into the next job. Combined with short-lived OIDC tokens in place of stored cloud keys, the migration upgrades the security posture without a separate security project.

This isolation also intersects with the reliability story, because a clean environment per job eliminates an entire category of flaky failures caused by state bleeding between runs. Managed runners that provision a fresh, isolated environment per job deliver this by default, so the team gets the security and the reliability benefit from the same architectural choice it made for cost, which is the recurring pattern in why these migrations are landing now.

Recommendations

Migrate the highest-traffic pipelines first

The busiest pipelines deliver the most cost and reliability benefit per pipeline moved, so doing them first front-loads the payoff and builds the case for finishing the long tail. Starting with obscure, rarely-run pipelines burns effort for little return and stalls momentum.

Budget weeks scaled to how imperative the old config is

Declarative Travis and CircleCI configs port with modest rework; imperative Jenkinsfiles full of Groovy and shared libraries need their logic rebuilt, not just their syntax translated. Plan six to ten weeks for a mid-size Jenkins estate and less for declarative sources, and treat the rewrite as behavior work.

Pair the move with managed runners, not a self-hosted fleet

Self-hosting Actions runners recreates the agent fleet maintenance the team left Jenkins to escape. Managed runners capture the per-minute saving, roughly 69% below GitHub-hosted, while removing the fleet entirely, so the migration solves the operational burden instead of relocating it.

Adopt self-healing while you are already changing the runner layer

Legacy setups absorbed transient failures through manual re-runs the team stopped noticing. The migration is the moment to add automatic recovery on a fresh environment, which removes the most frequent category of red builds at no extra migration effort since the runner layer is already changing.

Use the migration to move to ephemeral, isolated runners

Long-lived legacy agents carry state and credentials between jobs. Switching to single-use environments per job with short-lived OIDC tokens closes a class of security incident and removes a category of flaky failure at once, and managed runners deliver that isolation by default.

Outlook

Through 2026 and into 2027, the migration wave toward Actions largely completes for the cohort that started, and the question shifts from whether to move to how to land the move well. The platform choice is increasingly settled; the differentiator becomes the runner layer underneath, because that is what decides whether the migration delivers the cost and reliability gains or quietly recreates the maintenance burden the team set out to escape.

The drivers will continue to converge on consolidation. As more of the delivery toolchain, code, review, packages, identity, and pipelines, lives in one place, the marginal cost of keeping a separate legacy CI system rises, and the last holdouts migrate not because CI alone justifies it but because the integration and security surface of running a separate system is no longer worth defending. The migration becomes a consolidation decision more than a CI decision.

For most teams the practical takeaway is that the destination is decided but the execution is not. Migrate the high-traffic pipelines first, budget for the rewrite that imperative configs demand, and pair the move with managed runners and self-healing so the after picture is genuinely cheaper, more reliable, and lower-maintenance. The teams that get the runner layer right will spend the next two years with the burden gone; the teams that self-host will have moved the problem rather than solved it.

Methodology

This report synthesizes publicly available adoption data (GitHub Octoverse for Actions adoption growth and developer surveys) with Latchkey analysis of CI/CD migration effort and runner economics. Figures labeled "modeled" are illustrative estimates derived from public pricing, observed migration projects, and typical pipeline shapes across source platforms, not a primary survey; figures attributed to a named source reflect that source. Cost commentary ties to published runner rates (Linux 0.008, managed 0.0025, a 69% reduction). Figures labeled "modeled" are illustrative estimates derived from public pricing and typical pipeline shapes, not a primary survey; figures attributed to a named source reflect that source. Pricing reflects published rates at time of writing and should be verified against current provider pricing.

Sources

• GitHub - Octoverse
• Stack Overflow Developer Survey
• DORA State of DevOps Report
• GitHub Actions - billing & pricing

More Latchkey reports