Compare
runnerhut vs Depot
Best known for accelerated remote Docker builds, with GitHub Actions runners added alongside. Strongest when container image build time dominates your pipeline.
What Depot does well
- Excellent remote Docker build performance with persistent layer cache
- Native multi-platform builds without QEMU emulation
- Simple, well-designed developer experience
Where we differ
- Docker-first — less compelling when your bottleneck is tests, not images
- Narrower runner matrix than platforms leading with general-purpose CI
| Depot | runnerhut | |
|---|---|---|
| EU data residency | Not published | Six EU regions |
| Remote Docker builders | Yes | Yes |
| Native multi-arch | Yes | Yes |
| General CI runners | Yes | Yes |
| macOS runners | Yes | Yes |
| Test-suite acceleration | Secondary focus | Primary focus |
Your next build could be twice as fast, at half the price
Start free. Migrating away is the same one line, and we publish that diff too.
Related
runnerhut vs GitHub-hosted runnersThe default runners built into GitHub Actions. Zero setup, billed per minute against your GitHub plan, with larger runners and native arm64 available on paid tiers.runnerhut vs BlacksmithA YC-backed managed runner platform positioned as a drop-in GitHub Actions replacement, advertising up to 2× faster CI with faster caching and lower cost. Raised a Series B led by Peak XV and is SOC 2 Type 2 compliant.runnerhut vs WarpBuildA hosted runner platform offering Linux, macOS and Windows runners plus bring-your-own-cloud deployments on AWS, GCP and Azure. Advertises roughly 2× faster builds at about half the cost of GitHub-hosted runners.runnerhut vs NamespaceEphemeral compute for CI and development: drop-in GitHub runners alongside devboxes, sandboxes and ephemeral Kubernetes clusters, with Bazel remote execution and egress filtering.