A lot of Jenkins vs GitHub Actions discussions get simplified into feature comparisons.
More plugins.
Better UI.
Easier setup.
But once CI/CD starts scaling across teams and environments, the decision usually becomes much more operational.
Jenkins gives teams deeper infrastructure control and customization, which matters in larger or heavily customized environments.
GitHub Actions removes a lot of operational overhead and fits naturally into GitHub workflows.
In reality, most teams end up optimizing for operational tradeoffs.
Things like:
<ul>
<li>maintenance overhead</li>
<li>infrastructure ownership</li>
<li>pipeline flexibility</li>
<li>workflow simplicity</li>
</ul>
I found this breakdown useful because it compares Jenkins and GitHub Actions from an operational perspective instead of only comparing features:
<a href="https://www.kubeblogs.com/jenkins-or-github-actions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.kubeblogs.com/jenkins-or-github-actions/</a>

Divyansh

A comparison of Jenkins and GitHub Actions that goes beyond surface-level feature lists to focus on operational tradeoffs at scale. Key considerations include maintenance overhead, infrastructure ownership, pipeline flexibility, and workflow simplicity. Jenkins offers deeper infrastructure control for complex environments, while GitHub Actions reduces operational burden and integrates naturally with GitHub workflows.

Most Jenkins vs GitHub Actions Discussions Ignore the Hard Part