I use the solution for my company's customers, for whom I take care of the version controlling of source codes.
The tool offers a limited pipeline structure. In terms of improvements, the tool should provide more pipeline structures. On the security front, Bitbucket doesn't provide much, making it an area where improvements are required. With respect to code review, the tool needs to provide more options and provisions so that it is possible to link and perform code reviews without a lot of hesitations or shortfalls. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in Bitbucket.
I have experience with Bitbucket for six to seven years. I am a user of the tool. My company also has a partnership with Bitbucket.
Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Atlassian has an architecture that supports scalability features, especially when you deploy the product on an on-premises model since it can support multi-node functionality.
My company deals majorly with enterprise-sized customers who use the product.
I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.
The product's initial setup phase experience was good.
The implementation is pretty straightforward because there is not much you can do with the Bitbucket since it can be described as more of a repository-oriented tool.
The solution is deployed on the cloud.
The solution can be deployed in a week.
Bitbucket is available at a minimal price point. I rate the product price as two on a scale of one to ten, where ten means that it is a very expensive tool.
The product is predominantly used in the IT sector.
Bitbucket's collaboration is based on Git, so anyone can create codes with the same repositories. The collaboration process of Bitbucket is good, but there are a lot of limitations with respect to the functionalities, especially when we look at Bitbucket's competitors like GitHub or GitLab. Bitbucket is not at the level of GitHub or GitLab. Bitbucket is more for entry-level teams who don't want to get into security or the pipeline part of their product. For an entry-level team, Bitbucket is good.
In terms of the CI/CD pipeline, though Bitbucket has a pipeline, it is not so strong. The major advantage of Bitbucket is on the price front since its competitors offer tools at a very high cost. The products from competitors are offered at costs that are five times more than the price of Bitbucket. With Bitbucket, the pricing is minimal, and you get many functionalities.
Code review is not so solid in Bitbucket, so you can do only a limited set of activities inside Bitbucket. The pull requests part in the tool is actually good. I cannot see any standard features available in the tool, but it offers normal functionalities. Bitbucket has a lot of limitations in the reviewing part.
Bitbucket integration streamlines workflows since it has integrated with a lot of CIs. The tool also works with an open DevOps approach, though there are no ready-made or predefined plugins available, which allows you to just plug and integrate with the CI server. You can also go with webhooks or APIs as they give the diversity feature, allowing you to play with multiple products, after which you need not switch between products just for the sake of integrations.
Bitbucket handles large repositories or projects since it has Git LFS, so if we have a large file system, then it seamlessly integrates. The problem comes with the tool's memory-related capabilities since if you go with its premium plan, then it is good, but if not, then on a monthly basis, you need to renew your space, which can be a slight headache for a customer.
For an entry-level team in a company, Bitbucket is a good option. If there are people who want some advanced tool for version controlling of systems with CI/CD integrations, then they need to look at other options.
I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
