Bitbucket Reviews

My main use case for Bitbucket is to collaborate on code, manage versions, then automate the software development life cycle, and design for professional teams to manage all repositories as well as for code reviews. I use Bitbucket for code preparation as well as code review.

The best features Bitbucket offers include code review, robust pull requests where a team can review code and leave comments, easy features for merging code, and the latest AI-powered insights, which includes Atlassian Intelligence that helps suggest code changes wherever team members want to change and identifies issues in broken builds while recommending reviews.

I use Bitbucket for automated pull requests, so whenever I use AI agents, they can automatically analyze code changes and generate comprehensive PR descriptions. That saves time for developers and ensures consistency across teams. Bitbucket helps me write code through an AI editor that can help write, summarize, and transform comments on my code, adjusting the tone of my responses to ensure clear and professional communications. Also, automated workflows, which I call robo-dev, are dedicated AI agents that can take actions on my behalf, such as handling code planning, performing code generation, and automating repetitive tasks at scale. Moreover, Bitbucket AI tools can act as an expert twenty-four seven, automatically scanning proposed code changes, highlighting potential bugs, spotting anti-patterns, and suggesting improvements before a human reviewer steps in.

Bitbucket has positively impacted my organization by saving time, managing code at one point, and helping track tickets assigned to team members via Jira. Everything can be managed from one point, making it very useful from both the Scrum and developer perspectives.

Bitbucket needs improvement as it has very limited cloud hosting options. With Atlassian phasing out its self-hosted server version, organizations are forced to choose between Bitbucket Cloud, which may not meet strict local compliance requirements, or a highly expensive data option. Additionally, Bitbucket is not competitive on pricing for scaling teams, as the free tier is great for up to five team members, but the jump in price for growing teams beyond five users can become steep compared to other repositories. Some enterprise users report that Bitbucket's stability can affect its speed when handling very large repositories, and though it has good support, the technical support team should be more active, as I have not seen them as active compared to GitLab and GitHub.

The limited cloud hosting options and pricing for scaling teams are two important areas for improvement.

I have been using Bitbucket for three years.

Bitbucket is very stable. Bitbucket provides the largest number of repositories with larger code, and I have not faced any issues related to stability. It is very good.

Some enterprise users report that while Bitbucket's stability and speed can degrade, it handles very large repositories at a very scalable moment.

I can rate customer support a nine out of ten as they are mostly available and provide quick solutions.

I had used GitLab before Bitbucket.

I switched from GitLab to Bitbucket because it depends on what tool the organization prefers. As a developer, I need to use what the organization is offering. Personally, I think people should go with GitHub if they are a solo developer or student or want to host public projects where others can easily find and contribute. Bitbucket is preferable if the company already uses Jira or Confluence or needs a cost-effective way to manage private repositories for small teams.

I do not have any relevant metrics at this time, but I see it can be useful for up to five team members. If more are needed, the organization must purchase extra at an additional cost. However, the deep integration with Jira means the organization does not need to pay extra because they can easily integrate with Bitbucket if they already have Jira. I can say the return on investment is very good compared to GitLab, but not better than GitHub.

Before choosing Bitbucket, I evaluated other options, including GitHub.

Bitbucket is deployed in my organization based on the client's requirement, integrated both on-premise and on cloud. I use AWS as my cloud provider. I purchased Bitbucket through the AWS Marketplace. I would recommend Bitbucket only if clients are using Jira or Confluence, and if they need a cost-effective way to manage private repositories for small teams, as it is a better option compared to GitHub and GitLab. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Bitbucket serves the same purpose as GitHub, where version controlling, raising bugs, branches, and merging branches are involved. The same functionality is available, and we are using Bitbucket as per client requirements.

The integration with Jira is a feature I really appreciate in Bitbucket because it allows for easy task management integration, which is very beneficial. Bitbucket provides strong Jira integration, which is essential for our client who uses Jira for task management. This integration helps streamline processes and has built-in CI/CD pipelines, private repositories, and provides solid support for managing tasks effectively.

The CI/CD pipeline in Bitbucket streamlines our development process as we need built-in pipelines, which are available and easy to use. Bitbucket maintains code quality through branch permissions that alert you if you are pushing directly and there are branch protections or conflicts. It enforces naming conventions for branches, making it secure and easy to manage.

Security-wise, Bitbucket has good features such as private repositories, access controls, authentication requirements, and secure pull requests, ensuring safety at various levels. The initial setup for Bitbucket is easy as I log in with the company email to access a workspace. Creating repositories follows a straightforward process involving setting permissions and branch creation.

Bitbucket has less community support compared to GitHub, which has many users. However, if you are already using Jira, Bitbucket becomes a natural choice.

Bitbucket has limitations such as community support and built-in pipelines, while GitHub provides public access with many users and projects. Moreover, the UI/UX in Bitbucket is not as user-friendly compared to GitHub, where navigation can be confusing.

For scalability, I would rate it an eight. There are areas they need to improve on, including attracting more users and enhancing the CI/CD pipelines.

I am using Bitbucket for one of the projects from the past one year.

I would rate Bitbucket's stability at eight for its functionality.

I would rate scalability an eight. There are areas they need to improve on, including attracting more users and enhancing the CI/CD pipelines.

I have not directly taken technical support from Bitbucket as I deal with development, but based on the documentation and resources available, I would rate their technical support at seven.

Positive

The initial setup for Bitbucket is easy as I log in with the company email to access a workspace. Creating repositories follows a straightforward process involving setting permissions and branch creation.

Bitbucket has less community support compared to GitHub, which has many users. However, if you are already using Jira, Bitbucket becomes a natural choice.

The purchase plans for Bitbucket come from the client side, and they provide us access and details.

I can recommend Bitbucket to others, especially to those using Jira, as it makes task management much easier for them to understand and to raise pull requests or branches.

We will be using GitHub to store the version controlling, and we will be using it with some actions to merge the codes and raise the pull requests for one project, while for another project, we are using Bitbucket, which also has the same functionalities as GitHub.

The choice is related to project requirements, so according to client requirements, we will be using different platforms. For one project, we are using Bitbucket and for another project, we are using GitLab.

I would rate Bitbucket an overall eight out of ten.

We mainly use Bitbucket for source code management, typically with all the dev repos and other third parties; the case resides in Bitbucket.

We have a number of dev projects residing in Bitbucket, and being a DevOps engineer, I mostly deal with this repo integration with the CI servers, Bitbucket, Bamboo, and Bitrise.

When a developer creates a pull request in Bitbucket, it automatically triggers a build in Bamboo, creating a build plan, and it starts building the dev changes and the new changes.

Bitbucket has a very clean UI, especially with the pull request dashboards where we can directly see the source and destination branches and the change, and the diff between the files in a single UI.

The security tools integration is very much easier, as for performing any SecOps activities, you can directly hook the Snyk or some other security tools with Bitbucket, and we have direct compatibility with various SAST tools.

Bitbucket doesn't provide any pipelines directly; we use Bamboo. We just hook the Bitbucket source code with a Bamboo pipeline as one of the jobs, one of the tasks in the pipeline activity.

We have a certain naming convention that we follow for the Bitbucket and Jira integration. If we have to create feature branches or any other branches with the name of a Jira ticket flag, adding the Jira ticket number in the commit message itself will directly sync with Jira, allowing a QA or developer to see the merges or commits from the Jira dashboard without opening the Bitbucket UI.

The branches in Bitbucket are purely a dev choice, and we follow a certain branching strategy including feature branch, bug fix, and other branches. For security's sake, if there is any hard-coded secret committed by the developers, we have the alerting mechanism, so we simply raise a notification and send it to the respective dev's mailbox.

These are most of the user-required features and functionalities available in Bitbucket, making it very user-friendly.

Sometimes the performance of Bitbucket is lagging; the UI loading part has some glitches at times, creating frustration for the developers.

Especially at the time of releases, when developers are actively committing, they want to access the tool more frequently, and at that time, developers experience some lagging and delay in the loading.

The only improvement needed is performance-wise, and if they can provide access to a dashboard where we can directly see the Sonar results and other third-party tools, it would be very time-saving for developers, QA, or the DevOps teams; as far as I know, that is not available as of now.

I have been working with Bitbucket for almost five years.

From a stability point of view for Bitbucket, I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability for Bitbucket nine as well.

I have had good experiences with the current agreements for Atlassian technical support, so I can say it's ten.

Positive

Setting up Bitbucket is very simple nowadays with the recent releases, mostly the cloud-based ones.

The in-house setup is very straightforward, and Bitbucket has provided their documentation; it's not a big deal to set it up—we can just spin it up in a day or two.

I would compare Bitbucket to GitHub as a main competitor in the market.

Comparatively, Bitbucket scores very well; in my opinion, Bitbucket is far better than GitHub.

I can say that Bitbucket is slightly expensive compared to other tools; I have already done that evaluation.

I purchased Bitbucket through the vendor only, and we have the Atlassian stack; we have taken the bundle license with other Atlassian tools as well, including Jira, Confluence, and Bamboo—not a single tool alone.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Bitbucket a nine.

My main use case for Bitbucket is for code management, code, and pipeline.

In my team, there are multiple people from different domains, and we are working in a distributed system on the same feature or product, so we do code on our local systems, but at the end, we need to merge our code. Bitbucket is the best place where we can push our code.

As we are managing our code into Bitbucket repo, which is a place where we store the code of a particular product, such as any QSR app, we have a repo and we push our code into that repo. Every individual pushes their code and we merge it with the help of the PR review process. For CI/CD, the CI/CD pipeline is a feature provided by Bitbucket to enhance productivity and security, allowing us to integrate a security pipeline like SonarQube, automate the process of build generation, and anything else.

In our workflow, multiple team members push their code into their branches on Bitbucket, which offers pull requests where each team member generates a PR request for review. If there is anything missing or if any inconsistency is found in the code, it can be highlighted with comments.

Additionally, Bitbucket offers automation features, allowing us to automate the PR review process, and it has adopted AI to further automate the complete review process. With CI/CD, we can also automate the process of pushing code using Git pre-hooks to validate everything before pushing. We check if our SonarQube pipeline works fine, and if anything goes wrong, we receive an email that our pipeline has failed. If it succeeds, we can generate the build, either AAB or APK, and even distribute our app on the Play Store.

The best features Bitbucket offers include a user-friendly interface for code management, which I find to be easier compared to other code management tools. Bitbucket has a very smooth UI/UX, making it easy to see my branches and repo, apply branch restrictions, add rules, and manage Bitbucket environment variables accessibly.

Regarding the environment variable management, we use secure API keys, such as Google Map keys, which are paid and very secure. Keeping them in the codebase would violate security policy, so we put our Google Map key into Bitbucket's environment variable and fetch it with CI/CD.

Bitbucket has a very great impact on my organization, as all code, whether from backend, frontend, or PWA, is now in Bitbucket, facilitating collaboration among our large team on the same codebase. Managing code becomes easy. Without Bitbucket, manual code merging would create problems we cannot imagine.

While other tools could help manage code, the UI/UX Bitbucket provides makes it easy to find branches, resolve conflicts, and add comments during the PR process. Maintaining code is crucial in the software industry, and the code is the key value, especially for our QSR-based product.

Bitbucket is quite good from what I have used. I am okay with the current state of Bitbucket, so no additional improvements are needed.

I have been using Bitbucket for around the last six years.

Bitbucket is stable.

Bitbucket's scalability is totally fine and stable.

I have not needed to reach out to Bitbucket's customer support team.

Neutral

I previously used a different solution before Bitbucket, specifically GitHub and GitLab, but I switched based on my organization's needs for Bitbucket licensing. After starting to use it, I loved it for the smoother experience.

I do not know which cloud provider is used. I received access from my IT support team, so I am unsure if they are hosted on their infrastructure or using something else.

I am not the correct person to answer questions about pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Bitbucket, as a dedicated team manages those decisions.

Using Bitbucket obviously saves time for my team. Especially during the AI era, Bitbucket has started adopting features that integrate with other apps, which greatly saves team time, and project management becomes much easier along with code management.

With Bitbucket, integrating SonarQube has helped us run the pipeline smoothly, allowing us to generate APK and AAB files that we previously did manually. The ease of managing code has saved everyone time from manual code merging.

I did not evaluate any other options before choosing Bitbucket.

I would say if you want a complete package for code management that includes automation of the code, PR review processes, code security, and integration with other applications, you should definitely choose Bitbucket. We are only customers of Bitbucket. I am okay with the current state of Bitbucket, so no additional improvements are needed. I rate Bitbucket ten out of ten because Bitbucket resolves my major problem of manual code merging through automation processes.

It offers multiple automations, and we can integrate Bitbucket with other apps, such as Jira, which allows branches to reflect the ticket name, making tracking easier.

I primarily use it for source control and building the pipeline, including the CI/CD pipeline.

I find Bitbucket's branching, pull requests, and branch mergers very valuable. It integrates seamlessly with task management tools like Jira, making it all integrated. Bitbucket's integration facilitates builds, deployments, visioning, and team collaboration. It also works well with the CRC department, Bamboo, and Jira for task management and work tracking. These are the main aspects I appreciate.

I do not have any specific suggestions at the moment. However, integration with Copilot could be beneficial. Similar to GitHub, having integration with Copilot might be an area to consider, although I am not sure about the strategy.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

In my experience, the solution is really stable.

I am not part of the team responsible for scalability, so I haven't encountered any issues regarding scalability.

We normally work with customers who host the solution and they have teams that support it, so I can't comment much on that. I have never directly dealt with customer service.

Positive

I have never been involved in the initial setup. I did a WebSocket setup many years ago, however, recently I haven't been involved with it. Therefore, I can't comment on the latest complexities or use the latest distributions.

I would say the choice depends on the needs of the organization. If you don't want to host yourself and prefer the cloud route, I would recommend GitHub.

I would recommend this solution depending on the use case. For organizations wanting to host themselves, I would opt for the main tech bucket. For a cloud preference, I would suggest the same. 

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten. I would prefer making that selection during registration to choose what information to share with others. I would also emphasize that staying anonymous is important and that's perfectly acceptable.

We are currently using Bitbucket mainly for version control. We migrated from GitLab to Bitbucket for better performance and CI/CD deployment processes. Bitbucket is very secure and easy to handle compared to GitLab. Most of the scripting is used for migration purposes and creating new repositories.

The most valuable features are the scripts used for migration purposes and to create new repository releases. The branching model in Bitbucket is also a significant aspect, though at present, we primarily use email for code verification and validation rather than a repository model.

In Bitbucket, manual processes are needed to handle changes between repositories. Automation for this process would be beneficial. We need a script that can automatically integrate specified changes at certain times without manual intervention. 

Additionally, an easier way to write automation scripts could significantly reduce the amount of scripting required.

I have been working with Bitbucket for one year.

Stability has some glitches and bugs. I would rate stability as seven out of ten.

Scalability involves vertical or horizontal expansion, and adjustments need to be made based on requirements. Optimizing scripts will make scalability easier.

I like communicating with the Bitbucket team and would rate their technical support as seven out of ten for their quality of service.

Neutral

We previously used GitLab. We faced migration challenges with GitLab's pipeline, which led us to switch to Bitbucket for its smoother migration process.

The initial setup was simple and easy to manage.

The setup was handled by our infrastructure team without the need for third-party consultants or integrators.

Pricing is not based on low cost. It's based on the quality and satisfaction of the services provided. We are not comparing Bitbucket's pricing with GitLab.

We previously used GitLab.

I would recommend Bitbucket to others because we are not experiencing any significant issues currently.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The main functions in Bitbucket that were the most useful for me included mostly some predefined functionalities available.

The way the table has been structured can be easily handled, which is beneficial.

Bitbucket provided benefits including ease of use and a good visual representation of some of the reports, which helped us significantly.

There was integration available between Bitbucket and JIRA for project management, but I did not work much with that integration.

Nowadays, a lot of AI-related capabilities have emerged, and Bitbucket can be integrated with a chatbot, LLM model, or agent, which would be really beneficial. Rather than searching for programmers, if we could write the query through an LLM, it would be much simpler. That is something that can be considered as a suggestion.

I feel the pricing for Bitbucket is on the higher end.

Positive

Products such as Snowflake are comparatively good compared to Bitbucket.

Both Bitbucket and Snowflake are good, but Snowflake appears to be gaining more momentum based on general studies.

Security is mostly handled by the IT team, so whenever it has been delivered to us, all the security measures have already been taken care of. Functionality-level security, such as the SME-level and manager-level reports, as well as the senior management reports, which is role-based security, was helpful. The overall security was handled by IT support.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Bitbucket an eight.

We use Bitbucket to manage source code and control the version.

The tool helps us manage different versions of code and branches. I like that Bitbucket is similar to Git but may have some vendor support. It has many of the same features as Git.

One helpful feature is that we can do many things directly in the browser, like creating pull requests or editing code, without needing Git commands. Bitbucket integrates well with other tools like Jira. When we raise a pull request in Bitbucket, it can create a change request in ServiceNow automatically. We first create a Jira ticket and tag its number in Bitbucket.

The solution integrates with DevOps tools like TeamCity, Travis, Jenkins, and Nexus repository. We use a branching model with a master branch and other branches for development and testing. Developers modify code in the dev environment; after testing, we implement it in production.

The online documentation isn't sufficient for configuration at an enterprise level. If new issues arise, vendor support may be necessary.

I have been using the product for two years. 

Sometimes, the Bitbucket server goes down, but it's rare. A specific team handles these issues and brings the server back up.

The solution is good enough for our current needs. The underlying hardware needs to support scaling it up vertically. Whether in the cloud or on servers with VMs, the basic requirements for Bitbucket need to be met to scale it up.

I'm unsure of the exact number of users, but it might be in the thousands. the tool handles production and development issues across multiple applications and DevOps tools.

For setup, the solution is hosted on a Linux server, similar to Git. In our environment, we install it on a server and host it on a URL. The deployment process is straightforward, with recommended steps available in documentation.

There are multiple ways to set up Bitbucket. It's not just standalone mode. We can set it up on multiple servers, not only Linux or Windows but even in the cloud. That's the current trend.

Maintaining Bitbucket isn't difficult, but engineers need clear knowledge about it to maintain it properly.

The tool has some better features than Git, though I'm not sure if it has vendor support. We currently use it in QA.

I would recommend Bitbucket to others. If it has vendor support, it can be used for production environments.

Overall, I'd rate it seven out of ten. Sometimes, the system might go down due to underlying server issues or other problems. To handle this, the underlying solution should be highly available.

Our primary use case for Bitbucket revolves around version control and collaborative development. We utilize it extensively to manage our codebase, facilitate Git operations, and automate our CI/CD pipelines on the Bitbucket Cloud platform. This setup enables seamless collaboration among our team members and efficient code management across various projects.

The platform's most valuable features are its strong support for Git operations and its versatile CI/CD pipeline automation capabilities. 

The product could benefit from enhancements in scaling capabilities for continuous deployment processes and better integration with other cloud platforms beyond AWS. 

I've been using Bitbucket for approximately five years now.

The product is stable. 

I rate the product scalability a nine out of ten. 

Bitbucket's customer service has been fast, and it has a knowledgeable team.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward, especially leveraging its cloud platform deployment options. 

We implemented the product with the help of our in-house team. 

The product offers competitive pricing structures for small to medium-sized businesses, which is especially beneficial for smaller teams. Its free options can also benefit enterprises, making it cost-effective compared to other enterprise-grade solutions.

We previously evaluated several alternatives but found Bitbucket the best fit for our requirements due to its robust Git support and comprehensive CI/CD capabilities.

Overall, Bitbucket has been instrumental in improving our development workflows and enhancing team collaboration. However, potential users should carefully evaluate their specific integration and scalability requirements to ensure it aligns with their long-term development goals.

I rate it a nine. 

We mainly use Bitbucket as a code repository. The solution provides a nice user interface where we can track every change. Bitbucket uses Git as a binary in the backend, so it's pretty simple for developers and administrators to take care of every commit. Moreover, Bitbucket is easy to integrate with Atlassian tools, like the Jira-to-Bitbucket plugin. We also use the Jira-to-Jenkins plugin and Bitbucket-to-Jenkins plugin. As part of the work solution, when we used Jenkins as CI, it also integrated with Bitbucket and Jira. Any changes are compiled and pushed into the Artifactory or another artifact-containing tool. Each commit that Jenkins compiles has automatically been reflected in Bitbucket. You can take a reference opposite to each commit, like "this is being compiled" and "this belongs to a particular Jira ticket." It's pretty simple to track each change.

Bitbucket has a pull request-based method, similar to Git's merge request feature. To merge specific changes as part of a DLP, for example, where four or five members work on the same branch. The commits themselves are quite challenging. If those five or six developers are working in parallel, there might be a lot of cases where they face conflicts while merging the code in a static target branch. The pull request feature, here, is very important to port the changes in the target branch simultaneously. This feature is very helpful from a developer standpoint.

Bitbucket is only a code repository. In the SDLC, Bitbucket only helps to contain the code without involving CI or CD. It's very challenging for Bitbucket in the competitive world, where other solutions like GitLab provide a CI/CD mechanism within the same service. If I had two options, I would prefer GitLab because it's a code repository with continuous deployment features. For it to survive, it's a compulsion for Bitbucket to work with a CI like Jenkins, and there is a loose coupling between them with lots of chances of failures, along with the low-based change flow from committing the code to posting the production. By contrast, GitLab is a fast-based change approach.

A new feature I'd like to see in Bitbucket would be code merging. If multiple team members are using Bitbucket, Bitbucket needs to improve the visibility of changes for each developer. When we raise a pull request, Bitbucket should provide some additional UI feature that reflects which engines belong to which developers, and that would be pretty easy to incorporate in the main branch.

It's been seven years since I started working with Bitbucket.

I rate Bitbucket's stability an eight out of ten. I sometimes find that Bitbucket is not reachable, and it's not in our scope to check what could be the reason because we have a platform team taking care of maintenance. Whenever we get into that situation, we must escalate it to them.

Scalability is a traditional approach because once we install a Bitbucket instance on any dedicated on-prem server, the scalability depends on how we scale the Bitbucket hosting server. It could be a Linux or Windows operating system, so we must focus on scaling up the hosting system. Horizontal scaling, in that case, is challenging. Vertical scaling is possible.

We have about 4,000 end users working on Bitbucket in my organization.

Technical support is not very fast. Once we raise a request to the Atlassian team, it usually takes more than two days to respond. They need to improve in that area.

Bitbucket is a kind of binary we have installed on our on-prem server, which can also be installed on cloud-based EC2 instances. Installing the binary on the on-prem server is not very difficult, but we need a separate administration team to take care of maintenance activity. Suppose the organization has 400 users on Bitbucket. In that case, we need a dedicated team to take care of administration and maintenance as a role-based kind of thing, taking care of plugin upgrades, such as the Jira-Bitbucket and the Jenkins-Bitbucket plugin. We need a dedicated team to handle these sorts of integration plugins.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten because it is cheaper than solutions like GitLab.

For average IT organizations, depending on the needs and if the development is not very aggressive, Bitbucket is a tool that can match the organization's needs because the load is not much. We have Jenkins as a service, and all the integration is already available, so based on the organization's needs, Bitbucket is quite stable and less expensive.

I rate Bitbucket an eight out of ten.