We performed a comparison between AWS CodeCommit and Git 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."
"It helps us to install our code idea projects."
"It is a pretty standard product with features like git clone and development branches."
"Version control is beneficial as it allows me to keep track of all the modifications I have made to the applications."
"The most valuable feature of Git is its reliability and user popularity."
"The most valuable feature of Git is its ability to track updates, such as firmware documentation. Additionally, many people can make changes to code without problems. It is able to solve conflicts very easily."
"Git's learning curve is shallow, making the solution easy to use after a few tutorials."
"The most valuable feature of Git is the ease of tracking in time what the snapshot of the code was at a particular moment. The versioning is good."
"I like Git's merging feature. For example, say there is an instance where I am working on the same code as another developer. Git automatically merges the work of two developers on the same file. If I'm working on line 50 and he's working on 60, and we both commit, it mergest automatically."
"The features I am most impressed by is the automation."
"The tool should improve its UI."
"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 solution could be more user-friendly and cheaper."
"The main problem for me is the frequent upgrades in the solution because every other upgrade is a minefield. When you do the upgrade, there is always something that doesn't work."
"The product needs to improve its UI."
"Git's user interface could be improved."
"I would like more documentation."
"Git removed the credential feature."
"The tool is complicated for a beginner. You need to have some training to use it. It is also hard to find a parameter."
"New developers sometimes find it difficult to call a review or create a request."
"The UI can be more user-friendly."
AWS CodeCommit is ranked 5th in Version Control with 3 reviews while Git is ranked 4th in Version Control with 35 reviews. AWS CodeCommit is rated 7.4, while Git is rated 8.6. 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 Git writes "A stable solution that can aid its users in maintaining all application developments ". AWS CodeCommit is most compared with Bitbucket, GitHub, Atlassian SourceTree and Bitbucket Server, whereas Git is most compared with Atlassian SourceTree, Canonical Bazaar, IBM Rational ClearCase, Surround SCM and Helix Core. See our AWS CodeCommit vs. Git 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.
