Apache Subversion and GitHub are competitors in the version control system category. GitHub appears to have the upper hand due to its extensive feature set, which enhances collaboration and workflow automation.
Features: Apache Subversion is favored for its robust versioning system and precise access control, which suits organizations with strict versioning requirements. It centralizes code repositories, ensuring code availability despite individual system failures. GitHub's features focus on collaboration, offering pull requests, integrated issue tracking, continuous integration support, and extensive security measures. Its code sharing capabilities and cloud-based platform facilitate remote work and team collaboration effectively.
Room for Improvement: Apache Subversion could enhance its collaboration features and integrate more seamlessly with external development tools. It relies heavily on community support, which may not suffice for all users. Additionally, modernization of its interface could improve user experience. GitHub can improve by expanding integrations with DevOps tools and offering more comprehensive out-of-the-box capabilities. Its robust feature set might initially overwhelm new users, thus simplifying initial setup would be beneficial. Enhanced offline support could also address connectivity concerns more efficiently.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Apache Subversion often requires on-premises installations, involving a dedicated team for maintenance, which might not be ideal for all organizations. In contrast, GitHub provides a cloud-based service, simplifying deployment and minimizing infrastructure needs. GitHub is recognized for its comprehensive online support resources that make resolving issues more efficient compared to Apache Subversion’s community-reliant support model.
Pricing and ROI: Apache Subversion attracts customers seeking a cost-effective solution due to its open-source nature, though long-term maintenance might lead to higher total costs. GitHub's subscription fee reflects its higher initial cost, but it often delivers a better ROI through advanced features and ease of collaboration, leading to increased productivity and reduced time to market. Pricing information for GitHub varies, with plans ranging from free for individuals to higher tiers for enterprises.
The technical support from GitHub is generally good, and they communicate effectively.
Some forums help you get answers faster since you just type in your concern and see resolutions from other engineers.
I have not used GitHub's technical support extensively because there are many resources and a robust knowledge base available due to the large user community.
We have never had a problem with scalability, so I would rate it at least eight to nine.
GitHub is more scalable than on-prem solutions, allowing for cloud-based scaling which is beneficial for processing large workloads efficiently.
If a skilled developer uses it, it is ten out of ten for stability.
It provides a reliable environment for code management.
GitHub is mostly stable, but there can be occasional hiccups.
If they write incorrect code, it will notify me about it in the same dashboard.
I would like to see some AI functionality included in GitHub, similar to the features seen in GitLab, to enhance productivity.
When solving merge conflicts, it would be helpful to have tooltips within the actions to know what changes could happen next when resolving a conflict.
The pricing of GitHub depends on the choice of solutions, such as building one's own GitHub Runners to save money or using GitHub's Runners with extra costs.
Normally, GitHub is not expensive, but it would be welcome if it reduces costs for developing countries.
The pricing of GitHub is reasonable, with the cost being around seven dollars per user per month for private repositories.
When working with the CI/CD pipeline and somebody is writing the workflow file, it would be best to include the AI feature so if they write incorrect code, it will notify me about it in the same dashboard, eliminating the need to use third-party tools to review the file.
I like how I can create different builds from different branches, which helps me as a QA to test certain features separately from the main application.
GitHub Actions for CI/CD implementation.
Product | Market Share (%) |
---|---|
GitHub | 8.0% |
Apache Subversion | 2.7% |
Other | 89.3% |
Company Size | Count |
---|---|
Midsize Enterprise | 1 |
Large Enterprise | 6 |
Company Size | Count |
---|---|
Small Business | 42 |
Midsize Enterprise | 12 |
Large Enterprise | 48 |
We monitor all Version Control reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.