Bitbucket Reviews

We use Bitbucket to store all of our code repositories. It has become the standardized tool for code management across all teams.

The platform integrates with other tools, such as Jenkins, enabling automated workflows for building, testing, and deploying code changes. It triggers the pipeline process, ensuring that builds are generated and deployments are managed efficiently.

The product could be less expensive for small companies.

We have been using Bitbucket for five years.

The product is stable. Being utilized by a multinational company like ours, stability is crucial, and it has consistently delivered on this front. Over the past five years of usage, we have encountered no significant defects or bugs.

We have around 1000 Bitbucket users in our company. On a wider scale, across India, where we have 22,000 employees, Bitbucket adoption is also significant.

The initial setup for Bitbucket was straightforward. The process was similar to deploying GitHub and GitLab, based on Git technology. We have various tools available, such as SourceTree or Visual Studio Code, which can seamlessly integrate with the product. I prefer using Git Bash for command-line operations. However, many others in our team utilize Visual Studio Code, which provides a user-friendly interface for running commands.

In a small-scale company where I previously worked, cost-saving measures led to a transition from GitLab's dedicated servers to GitHub's cloud-based solution. This switch resulted in significant cost savings and demonstrated the impact of cloud technology adoption on budget management. However, my current organization, a larger enterprise with a substantial budget, focuses on reliability and functionality rather than cost alone. Therefore, while Bitbucket may be perceived as costly for smaller companies, larger enterprises like mine prioritize tools like ServiceNow despite their expenses.

While alternatives like GitLab and GitHub were available, our organization remained steadfast in its preference for Bitbucket. Additionally, our team members, particularly those involved in DevOps, CI/CD, and system maintenance, were highly experienced with Bitbucket. Given the critical nature of our work in the banking and insurance sectors, where clients worldwide depend on our products, there was a reluctance to experiment with alternative solutions.

Learning to use Bitbucket, especially for beginners, is quite easy. In my experience spanning over twelve years in the field, most companies rely on Git for version control, and Bitbucket is just one of the platforms built on Git technology. The commands and client tools are the same: Bitbucket, GitHub, or GitLab. This uniformity makes it straightforward for beginners to adopt and use Bitbucket or any Git-based tool without facing significant challenges.

I recommend Bitbucket for version control features. It is a good tool suitable for long-term use. It's straightforward to adapt to, with user-friendly features and a convenient UI. 

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I use the solution mainly to control and share code within the team. I also use it to secure my parts and deploy my code. Overall, Bitbucket is for DevOps purposes.

We work on two or three different solutions, and we have some IoT devices that we collect some data from. That is a separate solution we use to identify customer flow and is on-premises. Though there is hardware for the basic part of the solution, we have cloud-based applications that collect data directly from that application.

Besides that, our primary ERP machine, an ERP server, dynamically provides financial operations. It contains everything about us and is cloud-based. Our third team is Power BI, and though it is cloud-based, the core is our data.

We collect data from all three sources for analysis and have a big setup for data computation, integration, and analysis. We use a database on-premises for that. We also use some Azure services, but not as much because we mainly use our database on-premises, and we integrate our cloud solutions directly with that. We have very high-speed Internet, so our customer and employee loyalty and mobile applications are different applications we use, all integrated with that specific database, and it is very smooth. Our primary applications are hosted on the cloud, and our analytical part is hosted on our private cloud.

Bitbucket is feasible and friendly compared to Visual Studio DevOps on the Microsoft platform. I have Visual Studio DevOps, Bitbucket, and Atlassian, and I found Bitbucket enabled more on a technical level because it grants access to those low-level things you can't access in Visual Studio DevOps, where you need to buy a specific part for that and integrate it with OneDrive first. With Bitbucket, you can easily integrate Visual Studio and use different tools. Also, when it comes to costs for the premium version, Bitbucket is lower than that part, and you still get the same level of access.

When users are given access for the first time, they should have some basic setups to help them specify their purposes. For example, when someone selects DevOps, they could get branches and trees created for dev, QN, and production deployment by default. Bitbucket could give access to the user from the front end to click and start working. The three setups mentioned would be very easy for organizations like Bitbucket to offer for free, for the user to create by default and just click and run.

Bitbucket must also incorporate the product with top-tier applications like Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Visual Studio. Other than Microsoft, Bitbucket could integrate with Oracle directly. Bitbucket could have these three foundation servers and Visual Studio at a very minimal cost, which would help businesses get some options. Bitbucket has to work in that market as well because this market has only one or two products already offered by top-tier companies.

I've worked with Bitbucket since 2017 or 2018.

I have not faced downtime because I don't know at what scale Bitbucket has been used. If I scale it to twice or thrice my site, I might face some problems.

When it comes to scalability, there's always a point for improvement, so I rate Bitbucket's scalability a seven out of ten. The solution is technically feasible, but when discussing scalable applications while targeting high-level customers, there is a problem with the customer interface. You don't always have a system admin with technical exposure when scaling up, so Bitbucket needs three setups. That way, when you scale up your customers, they can easily get the part.

We have a maximum of five people using Bitbucket at a time.

We contacted support recently because of some accrued repositories and received timely support.

The initial setup is not very complex on the technical side for us because developers, programmers, and operations people have a good idea of how to set up these things. You just need to know the audience using this type of application. Mainly, the audience would be system admins or developers who are technically enabled, so they don't face many hurdles or problems while working with the application.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten because it is expensive. We pay about $500 or $600 a year for the Teams server.

I rate Bitbucket an eight out of ten.

Actually, I have an E-commerce product on that solution and store it there. I deploy the product for each customer and they use it. I'm trying to use the cloud system as my center for distribution. I use Bitbucket for hosting the core code.

I'm using the private cloud because I don't want to have my source public on the internet. I'm very happy about that solution because it's precisely enough for me and my needs. Being private was very important for me, and working with the product's GUI user interface is a good experience. 

While it is a good and useful product for my application, there are several disadvantages to the system. One thing I have seen is that you can't add some better features to the wiki system. For example, better attachment and document management could be more useful. We actually use another system for our documents because the document management system was not suited for us. Maybe they can improve the wiki side of that product. The issue tracking also can be better than it is now.

The wiki side of the system can use the most enhancement. When I want to use the wiki, I have many problems writing the source code in different code languages. We are creating a web program. Because it is a web project, we want to use, for example, JavaScript and we use CSS. Then we want to use Java for the back-end. When we use different languages, we have a problem deploying them with that system.

Sorting documents is an issue, and also issue tracking over in the system is not very professional. If you compare this product with JIRA it is not very good in these capacities. There is a lot of room for improvement. Another comparison could be made with teamwork.com which is better at these things. We used teamwork for a situation where we needed both better document handling and better issue tracking. We wanted to have something like GitLab with all the features of a project management tool.

Another problem that I had involved issues with CICD (Continuous Integration Continuous Deployment). I could not configure it easily. I did not try to resolve the issue and left it for the future. Maybe it was because of the user interface or maybe because the documentation was not so good, but the CICD pipeline wasn't very easy for us to use. Maybe just adding more helpful documentation for that feature will solve the issue.

The limit on the number of users became a problem for us because we live in a country in the Middle East. The issue of spending more money and having additional costs is a really big concern for us. For example, for being the Turkish leader in the field, what we were able to charge the customer compared to what we are paying for services is not cheap. That makes it difficult to make a decent profit, re-invest and grow.

Other additional features I would like to see can help expand how we work with customers. One example is adding a notebook. There is no notebook in the product at all to write notes for your users and customers to remember details about them and have them available.

Another example would be to add a feature that allows you to integrate and converse with GitLab. Sometimes we need to write some notes for something inside GitLab, but it would be good to have the availability to add from both products and have them integrated. 

If BitBucket had online chat and online help for premium users, it will be best for users who need to get support. Programmers want to focus on the code. For example, if I want to configure something in my pipeline or in a product I am building, I may need to read 30 articles to understand what is happening on the system in order to program it. If I am in a rush and I am a programmer, I don't have enough time for that. So if BitBucket had an online chat system for support to help the developers, that could speed up development and access to support itself.

I can understand these things may not be the primary purpose of the BitBucket solution, but maybe if these things can be added the solution would be more independent, better integrated and would be nearly perfect.

This solution is perfectly stable. We never had a problem with it, and after five years it is still running as we expect. I love this program for that. 

Many software companies are trying to scale up on the cloud. BitBucket should add some features to make some better use of the cloud and other integrations. For example, if you want to migrate your product to AWS (Amazon Web Services), the AWS will try to send the source code to a codecomp system. Maybe you have something that you do not want to migrate from the source to Amazon. It would be nice to have controls for that. When you commit the code to BitBucket it would be good to be able to also commit from BitBucket to use AWS. 

In our company, we had ten proficient programmers working on the project and we have good clients in Turkey. We could scale the program as well as the number of users and our market or in other ways. I think I am confident in that. So the product is scalable in many ways.

The company can improve access to technical support. Some of the documentation was not so good. We did not use it much.

From my point of view, the setup for the Atlassian product was better than other products but had less to offer as a system. I tried to switch to TFS (Team Foundation Server), a Microsoft product, and I couldn't use that because I loved this user interface system in the BitBucket product more than TFS.

The first upload of our project was in 2015. I uploaded that code. It wasn't very hard to use the solution or do the deployment. Some of the configuration is not as easy or as good as it could be. The system has changed, but since the implementation, I have made no changes in three years.

In a way, I did evaluate other options but it was after I was already working with BitBucket. I tried to use TFS and GitLab, but I couldn't add my existing support to their systems. I loved this support system that I had with BitBucket — the system was very good. But looked at other solutions because I wanted some other features that these other products claimed to have, like issue tracking and a better wiki. These were things which I couldn't get directly in the BitBucket service. But I had gotten used to the excellent GUI in BitBucket and thought it was almost perfect. There were some things missing but the solution was perfectly enough for us. I decided there was no need to change to TFS or the GIT system after the comparison.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. I love this product, so actually eight may actually not be good enough for the rating. On the other hand, there is a lot that could be incorporated or improved.

We use Bitbucket for code management.

The product's most valuable feature is output backup.

There could be more AI features included in the product.

We have been using Bitbucket for two years.

I rate Bitbucket's stability a ten out of ten.

We have 100 Bitbucket users. It is a scalable platform.

The initial setup process is easy. It involves linking a desktop and deploying the code into Bitbucket. It takes a few minutes to complete.

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

Bitbucket is an inexpensive product.

I rate Bitbucket a ten out of ten. I advise others to experiment with integrating the product with other vendors for deployment.

Bitbucket is the factor standard for development nowadays.

Git is Bitbucket's most valuable feature.

The module component needs improvement. 

I have been using Bitbucket for several years. 

Bitbucket is highly stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We currently have 35 users. Bitbucket is extensively used.

I have previously used ClearCase and another server controller.

Bitbucket's initial setup is easy. 

A full licensing cost is paid for Bitbucket. 

I recommend Bitbucket to others. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Bitbucket as a repository for our sensitive data, like source code and any other sensitive information that requires change and version tracking. We have eight to 10 users currently accessing Bitbucket.

Bitbucket is a standard source code repository with all the features you would expect. It supports Git and SVN. It's an extensive tool that provides us with merging, branching, and change management capabilities. You can compare the changes with the current and previous versions.

We have been using Bitbucket for four or five years.

Bitbucket is highly stable.

You can scale Bitbucket vertically or horizontally.

I rate Bitbucket support eight out of 10.

Positive

We used Team Foundation Server and Microsoft SourceSafe.

Bitbucket's Initial setup is a little complicated because you need to install  and configure the solution. It can take one or two days to deploy Bitbucket. If you have a high workload, you can deploy it on multiple server farms as needed.

The vendor is maintaining Bitbucket. We have one staff member responsible for the configuration, but we consult the vendor for patching and upgrades.

I rate BitBucket eight out of 10. Bitbucket is an excellent product. Atlassian will move to the cloud, so the on-prem version may be phased out. You have to be careful when choosing this product. There will be a cloud version available, so it's better if you go with the cloud version of Bitbucket.

Bitbucket's best feature is a Git client called SourceTree, which allows you to seamlessly integrate on-premise with on-cloud and mix and match repositories on your own server.

I've been using Bitbucket for four or five years.

Bitbucket's stability isn't flawless. It has crashed on me occasionally, but I haven't yet lost anything after a crash. I believe the client is written in C or C++ and should possibly be subject to a more rigorous testing procedure.

The initial setup is very simple - you use the web interface to create a repository, then receive a link and use it in your SourceTree client, and then you're connected. This is why I prefer Bitbucket to GitLab, because it's totally integrated and works with Jira, so everything is inside the same realm.

Bitbucket lets me create new projects in a few clicks and check out files in a seamless and integrated manner. It's also great for Linux users, including SourceTree running on Ubuntu, and for organizations that use Jira heavily. I would rate Bitbucket as eight out of ten.

We use the solution for source control.

The planning model is good, and so is the suite of applications around it. Bitbucket makes it easy to manage ops, integration, and unified login.

Bitbucket should come with code review pre-integrated, which would be better than integrating another tool into the solution.

The organization I'm working with has worked with the solution for about six months.

I rate Bitbucket's stability an eight out of ten for our use, keeping in mind we just use it for source control.

We have 20 users on Bitbucket. I have seen Bitbucket expand to hundreds of developers across multiple teams, and I didn't find any issues then.

My IT team has contacted customer support for Jira, probably to enable SS4. I didn't hear any complaints from the IT team that the resources were slow. They were able to resolve the issue pretty fast.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We managed the installation and configuration in-house.

I rate Bitbucket's pricing a five out of ten.

Comparing Bitbucket with GitLab, I would have chosen GitLab earlier because of its pricing model, though their new model has gotten a little expensive. Likewise, GitLab is better feature-wise.

If the organization has adopted Atlassian, I will choose BitBucket. Still, if somebody has chosen Visual Studio Online or Azure DevOps as their product management tool for their development activities, GitHub would be a better option.

Most providers provide scalable solutions, so that has not been something I've been concerned about. I'll know how to deal with it if I ever hit a hard limit. Likewise, hosting is not a big challenge. What concerns me is the service's features, whether it's BitBucket or GitHub. Similarly, I would be more concerned with creating the build pipeline, how well it's engineered, and supporting other platforms. For example, having the Mac OS or the iOS build tools available. A building environment is what I look for. And as long as the core repositories are working, scalability is my last concern.

When choosing a service, it's not just about the service alone but what the organization has adopted because that greatly determines what we choose. Otherwise, we would be competing with what the market provides in the future. 90% of future challenges would be because we poorly chose a tool.

I rate Bitbucket a six out of ten.