ApexDigital Solutions - Consultancy & Academy

Choosing between Traditional CI/CD pipelines and a GitOps operating model is one of the most important architectural decisions your DevOps team will make. Both approaches automate application delivery, but the trust boundaries, feedback loops, and operational models differ significantly. This article explores each in depth, helping organizations decide when to adopt GitOps, stick with traditional pipelines, or run a hybrid approach.

What is Traditional CI/CD?

Traditional CI/CD pipelines focus on build → test → deploy automation. A central CI/CD tool (Jenkins, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Azure DevOps, etc.) runs build and test stages, then pushes deployments directly to infrastructure environments.

Strengths

Mature tooling ecosystem
Fine-grained deployment workflows
Easy to integrate with existing enterprise systems
Clear separation of build and deploy stages

Weaknesses

CI system must have cluster/cloud access (broad blast radius)
Deploy logic is often imperative scripts
Rollbacks require manual intervention
Drift between declared state (YAML, Terraform) and actual runtime state

References: CI/CD Fundamentals (Martin Fowler), Jenkins Pipeline Documentation

What is GitOps?

GitOps applies Git-based workflows to infrastructure and application delivery. The Git repository is the single source of truth for desired cluster state. Instead of pushing deployments, an agent inside the cluster (e.g., Argo CD, Flux) continuously pulls from Git and reconciles the live state.

Core Principles of GitOps

Declarative: Desired system state is described in manifests (Kubernetes YAML, Helm charts, Terraform modules).
Versioned: All changes are stored in Git with full history and audit trail.
Automated: Agents sync and reconcile continuously; drift is auto-corrected.
Auditable: Git commits are the source of truth for "who changed what, when."

References: OpenGitOps Principles (CNCF), Argo CD Documentation, FluxCD Documentation

Key Differences: GitOps vs Traditional CI/CD

Traditional CI/CD

Push model: CI/CD server deploys directly to target clusters.
Secrets: Deployment credentials live in CI/CD system.
Rollback: Requires scripts or manual re-deploys.
Drift detection: Manual (kubectl diff, Terraform plan).

GitOps

Pull model: GitOps agents sync from Git.
Secrets: Cluster manages its own access (CI never touches prod).
Rollback: Just revert Git to a previous commit.
Drift detection: Continuous reconciliation, auto-healing.

Real-World Scenario

Financial Services Example

The Problem: A bank's Jenkins pipeline pushed directly to production clusters. A leaked GitHub token gave attackers cluster-admin access via the CI runner.

The Solution: The bank migrated to Argo CD. Now, CI pipelines only publish container images and update Git manifests. Clusters pull changes from Git, and CI no longer holds production secrets.

Implementation Patterns

Hybrid Model

Most organizations adopt a hybrid approach: CI handles builds, tests, image signing, and vulnerability scans; GitOps tools handle deployments and reconciliations. This separation limits blast radius and improves compliance.

Typical GitOps Workflow

YAML Argo CD Application Example

apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Application
metadata:
  name: myapp
  namespace: argocd
spec:
  project: default
  source:
    repoURL: https://github.com/org/infrastructure
    targetRevision: main
    path: apps/myapp
  destination:
    server: https://kubernetes.default.svc
    namespace: production
  syncPolicy:
    automated:
      prune: true
      selfHeal: true

Organizational Considerations

Regulated Industries: GitOps provides stronger audit trails (commit history) for compliance (SOC 2, PCI DSS, HIPAA).
Developer Velocity: GitOps reduces "works on my machine" drift and gives developers self-service via Git PRs.
Ops Overhead: GitOps requires investment in repo design (monorepo vs multi-repo) and RBAC in Git.
Culture: Teams must embrace Git as the only interface for deployments.

Decision Framework

🧭 When to Choose Which

Traditional CI/CD is a fit when:

You already have strong governance around CI/CD runners.
Your infra isn't declarative (legacy VMs, non-Kubernetes workloads).
Fast experimentation matters more than strict auditability.

GitOps is a fit when:

You run Kubernetes or other declarative infra (Terraform, Crossplane).
You need compliance and auditable change history.
You want automatic drift correction and immutable deployments.

GitOps vs Traditional CI/CD: Which is Right for You?