GitHub Actions runners comparison across CPU speed, queue time, and pricing. Benchmarks x64 and arm64 runners, including self-hosted options like RunsOn and AWS CodeBuild plus third-party providers.
This guide compares Linux GitHub Actions runner CPU performance, queue
times, and pricing across official GitHub runners, self-hosted solutions, and
third-party providers. Real-world benchmarks show how each option performs to
help select the optimal runner.
Benchmarks cover GitHub, RunsOn, AWS CodeBuild, BuildJet, Namespace, Blacksmith,
Cirrus, Warpbuild, Ubicloud, and Shipfox across Linux x64 and arm64.
RunsOn spot (2 vCPU) is ~$0.0008/min (x64) and
~$0.0007/min (arm64) including default EBS + license,
roughly ~7.2x and ~6.8x
cheaper than GitHub. Ubicloud is next at ~$0.0016/min (premium).
Best self-hosted
RunsOn is the cheapest self-hosted option and the fastest in this dataset
among self-hosted runners. AWS CodeBuild is slower and more expensive.
Fastest CPU
x64: Namespace (~4630) leads, followed by Shipfox and Blacksmith. arm64:
Namespace (~4226) leads, followed by Cirrus.
Lowest queue
GitHub is lowest at ~8s (x64) and ~6s (arm64). Warpbuild and Namespace are
close behind on x64.
How to read: CPU p50 is single-thread Passmark (higher is better), queue p50 is
time to start (lower is better), and price is normalized $/min.
GitHub Actions runner comparison leaderboard (Linux x64 vs Linux arm64)
Benchmarks use Linux runners only, the Passmark single-thread metric, and the
last 30 days of data.
If you’re comparing GitHub Actions runner pricing per minute, use the
$/min column below and account for spot vs on‑demand and any GitHub
self‑hosted runner fee for private repos.
Spot vs on-demand pricing can swing costs by 2–4x depending on region.
RunsOn pricing here includes EC2 + EBS storage + License (EUR 300/yr @ 25d * 12h / 100 jobs/day).
RunsOn spot pricing starts at ~$0.0006/min (x64 1 vCPU) and
~$0.0005/min (arm64 1 vCPU), including EBS + license. The
2 vCPU spot rates shown elsewhere are $0.0008/min and
$0.0007/min respectively.
If you want speed, look at CPU p50 (single‑thread) because most CI jobs are
not fully parallel.
If you want the lowest queue, GitHub leads in this dataset (~6–8s p50),
followed by Warpbuild and Namespace.
If you want predictability, favor providers with stable hardware (some
Hetzner‑based fleets can vary CPUs).
If you want control, pick self‑hosted (RunsOn, AWS CodeBuild) and keep data in
your cloud account. RunsOn keeps runners inside your AWS VPC; see
networking options.
Namespace leads x64 single‑thread; Shipfox and Blacksmith follow, with Cirrus close behind. AWS‑backed x64 runners lag due to slower CPU refresh cycles.
Namespace and Cirrus (Apple virtualization) lead arm64; RunsOn and Warpbuild follow with Graviton4. GitHub’s newer Cobalt CPUs are closer but not consistently available.
GitHub uses older CPUs overall, especially on x64.
RunsOn is the cheapest by a wide margin (roughly
~7.2x vs GitHub at 2 vCPU spot including EBS, with larger
savings at smaller sizes); Ubicloud is typically next. AWS CodeBuild remains
slow and not price‑competitive.
GitHub Actions runners are managed by GitHub and run on Azure. Access to private resources often requires secrets or OIDC.
RunsOn is fully self-hosted in your AWS account with a dedicated GitHub App; IAM policies and networking are fully under your control.
AWS CodeBuild is managed by AWS, runs in your account, and uses a shared GitHub App for registration.
Namespace, Blacksmith, Cirrus, Warpbuild, Ubicloud, Depot, Shipfox are SaaS providers; some offer BYOC, but the control plane and runner registration are not fully under your control.