Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Garden vs Zeabur

Garden logo

Garden

Developer Tools

Kubernetes development and testing automation with shared caching, now owned by Incredibuild

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Zeabur logo

Zeabur

Cloud

AI-powered cloud deployment platform for developers

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Garden incredibuild acquired Garden in November 2024 and the pricing page now redirects to documentation, so there is no public commercial offer and no published roadmap for a team betting a platform on it.; Zeabur free plan limited to single server with 48-hour log retention
  • They diverge on capability: Garden covers Action graph, Zeabur covers AI Agent.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Garden and Zeabur actually diverge.

Attributes where Garden and Zeabur differ
AttributeGardenZeabur
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feeFixed monthly plans
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows, KubernetesWeb, CLI
CategoryDeveloper ToolsCloud
FoundedUnknown2025

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Garden

  • Action graph
  • Shared result caching
  • Remote Kubernetes environments
  • In-cluster builds
  • Same config everywhere
  • Hot reload sync
  • Helm and Kustomize support
  • Templating

Only in Zeabur

  • AI Agent
  • Managed Servers
  • Domain and DNS Management
  • Email Service
  • AI Hub
  • Deploy Templates
  • Git Integration

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Garden

  • A platform team whose integration test suite takes longer than the coffee break and needs caching to cut the loopnot Zeabur
  • An organisation with thirty or more services on Kubernetes where docker-compose no longer approximates productionnot Zeabur
  • Giving every developer an ephemeral namespace instead of queuing for one shared staging environmentnot Zeabur
  • Running the identical build and test definition locally and in CI so failures reproduce on a laptopnot Zeabur

Zeabur

  • Deploying full-stack web applications without DevOps expertisenot Garden
  • Building AI agent infrastructure with integrated API accessnot Garden
  • Managing multi-region deployments with automated scalingnot Garden
  • Running containerized services with built-in domain and emailnot Garden

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Garden

  • Incredibuild acquired Garden in November 2024 and the pricing page now redirects to documentation, so there is no public commercial offer and no published roadmap for a team betting a platform on it.
  • It is tightly bound to Kubernetes, so teams running on ECS, Nomad, plain VMs or serverless get little from it and would need a different tool entirely.
  • The YAML action graph is a real configuration surface: a large monorepo needs someone to own and maintain Garden config as a first-class artefact, which is a standing platform-engineering cost.
  • Shared remote environments mean every developer needs cluster access and a cost allocation model, so cloud spend rises and namespace sprawl becomes a thing you have to police.
  • Caching correctness depends on declaring dependencies accurately; an under-declared action will serve a stale cached pass and hide a genuine test failure, which is a hard class of bug to notice.

Zeabur

  • Free plan limited to single server with 48-hour log retention
  • Small team size may limit support and feature velocity
  • Building spec upgrades limited on lower tiers
  • Enterprise support not clearly documented

Pricing, plan by plan

Garden

Free
  • Garden open sourceFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed CLI
    • Full action graph and caching
    • Self-managed clusters
  • Commercial tier$undefined/year
    • Hosted caching and team features
    • Support and onboarding
    • Pricing no longer published since the Incredibuild acquisition

Zeabur

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 1 manageable server
    • 2C4G build specs
    • 48-hour log retention
  • Dev$5/month
    • 3 manageable servers
    • 7-day log retention
    • 250 MB file uploads
  • Pro$19/month
    • 10 manageable servers
    • 4C8G build specs
    • 30-day log retention
  • Team$79/month
    • 3 included seats
    • Unlimited manageable servers
    • 90-day log retention

Which should you pick?

Choose Garden if

  • You need action graph.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes.
  • You also want shared result caching.
Garden review

Choose Zeabur if

  • You need ai agent.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, CLI.
  • You also want managed servers.
Zeabur review

Questions people ask

Is Garden or Zeabur better?
Neither clearly leads. Garden starts at Free and Zeabur at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Garden or Zeabur?
Garden starts at Free and Zeabur at Free.
Does Garden or Zeabur run on more platforms?
Garden runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes. Zeabur runs on Web, CLI.
Can I use Garden for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Garden best used for?
Garden is most often used for a platform team whose integration test suite takes longer than the coffee break and needs caching to cut the loop, an organisation with thirty or more services on kubernetes where docker-compose no longer approximates production, giving every developer an ephemeral namespace instead of queuing for one shared staging environment, running the identical build and test definition locally and in ci so failures reproduce on a laptop. Of those, a platform team whose integration test suite takes longer than the coffee break and needs caching to cut the loop and an organisation with thirty or more services on kubernetes where docker-compose no longer approximates production are not what Zeabur is typically brought in for.
What can Garden do that Zeabur cannot?
Garden covers Action graph, Shared result caching, Remote Kubernetes environments, In-cluster builds. Zeabur covers AI Agent, Managed Servers, Domain and DNS Management, Email Service.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Garden: Is Garden still maintained?

The open source project remains on GitHub under Incredibuild ownership, but the commercial pricing page redirects to the docs and there is no public paid offer.

Zeabur: What is included in the free plan?

The free plan includes 1 manageable server, 2C4G build specifications, 48-hour log retention, 50 MB file upload limit, and community support.

Source
Garden: Do I need Kubernetes?

Effectively yes. Garden is built around Kubernetes environments and offers little to teams on other runtimes.

Zeabur: How do additional seats work on the Team plan?

The Team plan includes 3 seats with additional seats available at $24 per seat per month.

Source
Garden: Does it replace my CI system?

No. It runs inside GitHub Actions, GitLab CI or similar and speeds up what those pipelines execute.

Zeabur: Is there a free trial period?

The Dev and Pro plans include 14 days free before billing begins.

Source
Garden: What is the actual saving?

It comes from skipping builds and tests whose inputs have not changed, so the benefit scales with how many services you have and how often only a few change.

Share

Related pages

More on Garden

More on Zeabur

Keep looking

Other head to heads