Docker and Bazel solve overlapping but fundamentally different problems. Docker focuses on simplicity and portability: define an environment once, build an image, and run it anywhere. Its mental model is easy to grasp, which makes it a great default for CI, deployment, and local development.
Bazel, on the other hand, is about correctness, reproducibility, and scale. It tracks fine-grained dependencies, supports hermetic builds, aggressive caching, and incremental rebuilds across large monorepos. That power comes with real complexity: steep learning curve, custom rules, nontrivial setup, and workflows that can feel heavy compared to a straightforward Dockerfile.
Which leads to the real discussion: what single feature, if Docker had it, would make Bazel unnecessary for you?
Is it reliable, content-addressed caching across machines?
True incremental rebuilds based on source-level dependency tracking?
Hermetic, reproducible builds by default?
If Docker (or a simpler Docker-compatible frontend) could offer one of those convincingly, would Bazel still be worth the cost?
Top comments (0)