The article provides a detailed comparison of Kubernetes and Nomad as container orchestration tools, highlighting their differences in complexity, ease of use, and ideal use cases. Kubernetes is portrayed as the standard choice for large-scale container orchestration due to its extensive feature set and ability to manage and restore failing containers, making it popular among major companies like Adidas, Spotify, and IBM. However, its complexity requires a steep learning curve, albeit with a robust ecosystem and community support. On the other hand, Nomad is described as a simpler, more versatile solution capable of managing various workloads beyond containers, making it suitable for users seeking easier installation and broader use cases, despite its relatively limited feature set compared to Kubernetes. The choice between the two depends on the complexity needed, future needs, and current development capabilities. The article also introduces Earthly, a CI/CD framework that enhances build processes by offering containerized, repeatable, and language-agnostic builds.