When comparing Hudson vs Wercker, the Slant community recommends Wercker for most people. In the question“What are the best continuous integration tools?” Wercker is ranked 8th while Hudson is ranked 27th. The most important reason people chose Wercker is:
Wercker is based on Docker and it allows developers to create their own deployment stacks inside Docker containers. These stacks range from programming languages, to services, and even to notifications.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Most of the features found on Jenkins are also available for Hudson
Since Jenkins and Hudson share much of the same code base, they also share many of the same features. Hudson is also very easy to install: there is simply a single .war file which is run inside the root of the directory where Hudson will be installed.
Pro Ability to create and use custom environments
Wercker is based on Docker and it allows developers to create their own deployment stacks inside Docker containers. These stacks range from programming languages, to services, and even to notifications.
Pro Free unlimited number of private repositories CI while in Beta
While in beta, Wercker offers unlimited free public and private repositories.
Pro Social networking elements
Wercker has an activity feed with which different team members can see and follow everything their colleagues have been doing. This gives the tool a certain social network feel, much like GitHub itself.
Cons
Con Superseded by Jenkins
Jenkins is a fork from Hudson and therefore inherits most of it's source code. But Jenkins has far more commits and is a lot more active on the development side than Hudson. A lot of plugin developers have also chosen to support Jenkins and develop their product for Jenkins only.