ArgoCD vs FluxCD in 2025: The Weaveworks Shutdown Changed Everything (Which GitOps Tool to Choose)

When Weaveworks shut down in 2024, it sent shockwaves through the GitOps community. Thousands of teams running FluxCD in production suddenly faced an uncomfortable question: Is our continuous delivery tool still viable? The answer isn’t simple, and it’s forcing DevOps teams to reevaluate their GitOps strategy in 2025.

The Weaveworks Shutdown: What Actually Happened

Weaveworks, the company behind FluxCD, closed its doors in early 2024. While FluxCD itself is now a CNCF graduated project and technically independent of Weaveworks, the shutdown raised serious questions about the project’s future development, support ecosystem, and long-term viability.

Here’s what changed:

Commercial support vanished: Weaveworks was providing enterprise support contracts for Flux. Those are gone.

Development velocity concerns: While Flux remains open source under CNCF, the core team that drove most innovations worked at Weaveworks.

Ecosystem impact: Third-party tools and integrations that relied on Weaveworks backing suddenly lost their commercial anchor.

Community uncertainty: Developers and companies investing in Flux wondered if they’d chosen the right tool.

Meanwhile, ArgoCD—backed by Intuit and with a much larger contributor base—continued gaining momentum, crossing 20,000+ GitHub stars and securing enterprise adoption at companies like Red Hat, Adobe, and Goldman Sachs.

ArgoCD vs FluxCD: The Real Comparison in 2025

Both tools are Kubernetes-native GitOps solutions, but they take fundamentally different approaches. Here’s what actually matters for production deployments.

Architecture and Philosophy

ArgoCD: Standalone application with a built-in web UI, centralized API server, and application-centric model. Think of it as a “GitOps platform” you deploy once and use to manage everything.

FluxCD: Modular set of controllers that run as native Kubernetes operators. It’s more like “Kubernetes extensions” that happen to do GitOps. No central server, no web UI out of the box.

The philosophical difference shapes everything else. ArgoCD says “we’ll give you visibility and control.” Flux says “we’ll get out of your way and let Kubernetes be Kubernetes.”

User Interface: UI vs CLI

ArgoCD wins here, hands down. Its web UI shows:

Real-time application health status

Visual diffs between Git state and cluster state

Sync history and rollback capabilities

Detailed event logs and resource trees

Manual sync triggers and selective sync options

FluxCD: No built-in UI. You can deploy third-party dashboards (like Weave GitOps), but they’re not as feature-rich. Most Flux users rely on kubectl, the Flux CLI, and Kubernetes dashboards.

For teams that prefer visual interfaces or need to onboard non-Kubernetes-expert developers, ArgoCD is significantly easier to adopt.

RBAC and Multi-Tenancy

ArgoCD: Built-in RBAC system with granular controls. You can define who can sync which applications, who can view what, and create role-based permissions that map to your org structure. Native multi-tenancy support with Projects that isolate teams.

FluxCD: Relies entirely on Kubernetes RBAC. More flexible in some ways (you’re using native K8s permissions), but requires more setup and Kubernetes RBAC expertise. Multi-tenancy works through namespace isolation.

Winner: ArgoCD for teams that need fine-grained access control without deep K8s RBAC knowledge. Flux for teams that already have strong Kubernetes RBAC implementations.

Sync Behavior and Drift Detection

ArgoCD:

Global sync interval (applies to all apps by default)

Can perform diff-only sync (shows changes without applying)

Supports Sync Windows (scheduled maintenance periods)

Manual sync option with selective resource sync

FluxCD:

Per-application sync interval (more flexible)

Always discards local cluster changes (no diff mode)

Can pause syncs temporarily per resource

No Sync Windows concept

ArgoCD gives you more control over when and how changes apply. Flux is more “Git is truth, period” — which can be good or bad depending on your workflow.

Scalability and Resource Usage

FluxCD is lighter. Its modular controllers use fewer resources than ArgoCD’s centralized architecture. For very large deployments (1000+ applications), Flux’s distributed nature can handle scale better.

ArgoCD consumes more memory and CPU due to its UI, API server, and controller components. However, it’s designed to scale horizontally with multiple replicas and sharding.

For most teams (under 500 applications), both scale fine. Beyond that, Flux has an edge.

Application Management

ArgoCD: ApplicationSets provide powerful templating for managing multiple similar applications. You can manage 100 microservices across 10 environments with a single ApplicationSet definition.

FluxCD: Requires more manual Kustomization or Helm releases. You can script it, but there’s no built-in abstraction like ApplicationSets.

Winner: ArgoCD for complex, multi-environment deployments.

Setup and Learning Curve

FluxCD: Automated bootstrapping via flux bootstrap. It’s arguably easier to get started because it installs itself into your cluster without much configuration. CLI-focused workflows feel natural if you’re already comfortable with kubectl.

ArgoCD: More initial setup (install ArgoCD, configure ingress, set up RBAC, create Projects). But once it’s running, the UI makes day-to-day operations simpler for teams.

Beginners lean Flux. Teams that value UI lean ArgoCD.

Is FluxCD Still Viable After Weaveworks?

Short answer: Yes, but with caveats.

FluxCD is a CNCF graduated project, meaning it’s owned by the community, not a single company. The CNCF provides infrastructure, governance, and neutral stewardship. Post-Weaveworks, several things happened:

AWS, Microsoft, and other vendors stepped up with maintainer commits

Development continues (slower than before, but active)

No catastrophic bugs or security issues left unfixed

Community-driven support via Slack and GitHub remains strong

However:

Innovation pace slowed. Major new features are less frequent.

Commercial support disappeared. If your company needs SLAs and paid support, you’re out of luck.

Long-term uncertainty. While Flux is stable today, will it keep pace with Kubernetes evolution and ArgoCD’s feature velocity?

If you’re already running Flux in production, there’s no urgent reason to migrate. But for new projects, the risk profile shifted.

Which Tool Should You Choose?

Choose ArgoCD if:

You need a user-friendly web UI for team collaboration

You’re managing complex multi-environment deployments (dev, staging, prod across multiple regions)

You need fine-grained RBAC without deep Kubernetes expertise

You want commercial support options (multiple vendors offer ArgoCD support)

Your team values visual diffs and manual sync control

You’re starting a new GitOps implementation and want the safest long-term bet

Choose FluxCD if:

You prefer CLI-driven workflows and lightweight tooling

You’re already comfortable with Kubernetes RBAC

You need per-application sync intervals and fine-grained control

You value lower resource consumption (important for cost-constrained clusters)

You’re managing very large scale (1000+ applications)

You trust CNCF governance and community-driven development

You’re already running Flux and it’s working fine

Migrate from Flux to ArgoCD if:

Your team struggles with CLI-only workflows

You need commercial support and SLAs

You’re concerned about Flux’s long-term trajectory post-Weaveworks

You’re expanding to multi-cluster and need better visualization

Real DevOps Impact: Making the Right Choice

The Weaveworks shutdown didn’t kill FluxCD, but it changed the conversation. ArgoCD is now the safer bet for most teams, especially those starting fresh or those who value UI-driven workflows and commercial support options.

Flux remains viable for teams that prioritize lightweight tooling, already have strong Kubernetes expertise, and trust CNCF community governance. But the momentum has shifted.

If you’re choosing in 2025:

For startups and small teams: ArgoCD’s UI and ease of adoption win

For large enterprises needing SLAs: ArgoCD (commercial support available)

For Kubernetes-native teams at scale: FluxCD can still be the right choice

For risk-averse organizations: ArgoCD has clearer long-term backing

The GitOps space is maturing, and both tools will likely coexist for years. But for new projects, ArgoCD is the path of least resistance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I migrate from Flux to ArgoCD without downtime?
A: Yes, with careful planning. Run both tools in parallel during migration. Gradually move applications from Flux to ArgoCD, test thoroughly, then decommission Flux. Expect 2-4 weeks for a full migration depending on application count.

Q: Is FluxCD going to die?
A: No. It’s a CNCF graduated project with active maintainers from AWS, Microsoft, and others. But the pace of innovation has slowed, and commercial support is gone.

Q: Does ArgoCD work with Helm?
A: Yes. ArgoCD natively supports Helm charts, Kustomize, plain YAML, and custom config management tools. Flux also supports Helm.

Q: Which tool has better security?
A: Both have solid security models. ArgoCD’s built-in RBAC is easier to implement correctly. Flux relies on Kubernetes RBAC, which is more flexible but requires more expertise.

Q: Can I use both tools in the same cluster?
A: Technically yes, but it’s not recommended. They’ll conflict over resource management. Use one tool per cluster, or clearly separate which tool manages which namespace.

Bottom Line

The Weaveworks shutdown changed the GitOps landscape, but it didn’t end FluxCD. What it did was shift the risk calculation. ArgoCD now offers the clearer path forward for most teams: better UI, stronger commercial ecosystem, active development, and enterprise backing.

FluxCD remains a solid choice if you value lightweight architecture, prefer CLI workflows, and trust CNCF community governance. If you’re already running Flux in production and it works, there’s no urgent need to migrate. But for new projects in 2025, ArgoCD is the safer bet.

The choice comes down to your team’s priorities:

Prioritize UI and ease of use? ArgoCD wins.

Prioritize lightweight and Kubernetes-native? FluxCD wins.

Need commercial support? ArgoCD is your only option.

Already running Flux? Evaluate if migration pain is worth the benefits.

GitOps is here to stay, and both tools deliver on the core promise: Git as the single source of truth for your Kubernetes deployments. Pick the tool that fits your team’s workflow, and commit to it fully. The worst choice is constantly switching between tools or running half-implemented GitOps.

Ready to choose your GitOps tool? Evaluate your team’s needs, test both tools in non-production environments, and make an informed decision. Share your experiences in the comments—are you sticking with Flux, migrating to ArgoCD, or starting fresh with one of them?

Follow for more Kubernetes architecture insights and DevOps tool comparisons.