We performed a comparison between AWS CodeCommit and Bitbucket Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Version Control solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."AWS CodeCommit is much easier to use than Bitbucket. It doesn't require any personal password or these things. We just need to put in our AWS account password and username."
"AWS CodeCommit is simple and cheap."
"The product’s most valuable features are private repositories and the ability to work as a proxy for implementing CI/CD pipelines."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is server management."
"It is an amazingly stable solution."
"Bitbucket Server supports code collaboration by providing commands developers can use to check in code. Through comments, developers can specify the purpose of the code check-in. Additionally, Bitbucket allows tagging of code for releases."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The tool makes pushing codes and setting up CI/CD pipelines easy."
"Our code is secure."
"There are some options in Bitbucket that are not available in AWS CodeCommit. For example, code reviewer. We can't add a code reviewer in AWS CodeCommit, and we can't fork the repository online. These are the two things that Bitbucket has, but the solution doesn't have. Also, Jira has a debugging option that AWS CodeCommit doesn't have. Another thing is that Bitbucket charges three dollars per month per user. Compared with AWS CodeCommit, that only charges one dollar per month. So, AWS CodeCommit is cheaper than Bitbucket. But it does not have enough features that Bitbucket has. Additionally, it will be good if you upload one video or documentation on how to use AWS CodeCommit for beginners. That will be more helpful. There you can add more details about pricing. There are not many details about pricing. Bitbucket has a table where they have mentioned everything in detail, like, what features for how much price, how much longer you can use and how many users can use."
"The tool should improve its UI."
"We opted for the on-premises solution, and while it's quite expensive, I believe there's room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"At the moment, there are not many details on how to proceed with the troubleshooting if one of the users faces an issue with the product."
"Some of the capabilities that I am looking for from a command line are not really available."
"The response time of the product's support team may not be good enough to meet the expectations of users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira."
"Bitbucket Server can experience performance issues when pushing a large amount of code. This process may take a considerable amount of time."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it's not very user-friendly or intuitive."
"Bitbucket Server has limited user support for its free version. It is expensive."
AWS CodeCommit is ranked 5th in Version Control with 2 reviews while Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 18 reviews. AWS CodeCommit is rated 7.6, while Bitbucket Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AWS CodeCommit writes "Offers convenient and cost-effective version control but lacks some advanced features and integration options ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Bitbucket Server writes "An easy to use solution that works as a code repository for developers and helps them merge changes ". AWS CodeCommit is most compared with Bitbucket, GitHub and Atlassian SourceTree, whereas Bitbucket Server is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and GitHub. See our AWS CodeCommit vs. Bitbucket Server report.
See our list of best Version Control vendors.
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.
